The Eucharist: Symbolic, Real Presence, Transubstantiation

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

I have seriously been through about 30 different sources for Transub from New Advent to Vatican.va to online dictionary's ect. there is no how the change happens, there is no exact precise explaination away of the Mystery.

1. WHY was the 900 year old understanding of Real Presence not enough for the medieval, western Catholic Scholastics? Why this new, unique, additional dogma? (Of course, it wasn't that for centuries - it was just ONE THEORY about things; it was made dogma after Luther's death and then used to anathematize him).

2. No one denies that Real Presence raises some questions. Real Presence leaves those unanswered (at least dogmatically); "mystery" - we call it. For the pre-1551 RCC and for the Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodist to this day - that's where we leave it. NO NEED to explain away anything; no need to delete or add anything to what Jesus said and Paul penned. Transubstantiation adds a new, second dogma. Why?

3. I wonder if you are trying to find Science in a world where it didn't exist? These medieval, western Catholic Scholastics were not physicists - at least not in any sense of that term today. They embraced two NON-science (well, one is perhaps pre-science) pop ideas of the day - and framed their new theory entirely by and with them. Even the very precise, technical, specific terms they used where lock, stock and barrel from those two ideas: alchemy and Aristotle's theory of accidents.

Let me ask you this as I know you believe in the Real Presence. When you take communion, what does the bread and wine taste like?

Bread and wine tastes like bread and wine.

But then, like every scientist in the world, I don't accept alchemy or Aristotle's theory of accidents.

It IS Christ's body and blood - because that's what Jesus said and Paul penned. That's it. That's all. It's called "Real Presence."

I have LOTS of questions - but I leave well enough alone because, well, it's well enough. Just like the RCC did before 1215 (or 1551) and just as the Orthodox Church and many Anglicans and Methodist still do.

Now, it MAY be that it looks and tastes like bread and wine because Jesus speak of bread and wine MORE after the Consecration that they do before - so it MAY be if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck - maybe it's a duck? But, AGAIN, all that is moot.

Why all this OBSESSION over the bread and wine when we have CHRIST???!!!! WHATEVER the point of alchemy's transubstantiation is vis-a-vis the Eucharist (and none of my Catholic teachers had a clue), it seems moot. Real Presence (just as Jesus said and Paul penned) is the point. CHRIST is present. CHRIST is here. I can have bread and wine anytime - both the reality and (fortunately) also the properties. But in the Eucharist - we have Christ. Transubstantiation - this medival embrace of alchemy and Aristotle's theory applied to the Eucharist - is ENTIRELY baseless, abiblical and absolutely moot. And accomplishes NOTHING - except make dogma out of two rejected theories, create textual problems, and focus on what doesn't matter instead of what does. Odd, this one. IMHO.






.

 

[boswd]

The whole notion of coming up with the term Transubstantiation was to fight heresy of the time from Gnoticts and other groups that developed their own theory of the Eucharist.

That's why there was all the hub bub during that time
But to be honest more Protestant's are more OBSESSED with the term Transubstantiation than the Catholics are.
When you have claimed that this was an exact, precised, explanating AWAY the Mystery, can you please show me some definitions of this exact, precise explaining the HOW.


Ok you said it still taste like wine and bread. Now though the properites of the Bread and Wine still taste like Bread and Wine, do you still think a Change has occured?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This is what makes the Eucharist a mystery that some cannot accept, because it is only perceptible as Christ's body by faith. Paul said when we eat and drink the bread and wine we "discern (or recognize) Christ's body." (1 Cor 11:29). And let no one doubt that the Catholic Church teaches this to be a great Mystery.

If you get into the theology of the Eucharist, you will find that the very properties of bread and wine have theological significance. For example, the Eucharist, as is the Church, Christ's body, which is made up of many members (1 Cor 12:12). Bread is made up of many grains of wheat, forming one body (cf. John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, #23).

There are a couple good articles from earlier this year in This Rock magazine titled "Why Wheat" and "Why Grape Wine" by theologian David Lang, for a recent perspective.

God bless.

Thank you for that articulate support of Real Presence. MANY of us agree on that doctrine. It's symbolic presence and transubstantiation that seem to be so highly controversal.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The whole notion of coming up with the term Transubstantiation was to fight heresy of the time from Gnoticts and other groups that developed their own theory of the Eucharist.

No. The concept of transubstantiation dates no further back that the 9th century. Gnosticism was a movement primarily of the first and second centuries (although it still lives in various forms today).

Real Presence (a doctrine Orthodox, Lutherans and others AGREE with the CC on), affirms the literal, real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Transubstantiation does nothing whatsoever to support or contribute or affirm that. Obviously.

Transubstantiation was dogmatized in 1551 NOT in response to Gnosticism but in response to Luther. He taught Real Presence exactly as did/does the RCC.

Ok you said it still taste like wine and bread. Now though the properites of the Bread and Wine still taste like Bread and Wine, do you still think a Change has occured?

1. What I might THEORIZE is moot. We're not talking about anyone's theory. We're not even talking about one's pious opinion. It's DOGMA in the RCC.

2. "Change" is never mentioned in any Eucharistic text. I agree with you, this whole obsession with alchemy is meant to address the issue and interpretation of the word "change" and "changed" in the text - but I'm not sure they've notice that such doesn't appear anywhere.

3. The text says "is." I can find no definition of that word in any dictionary that indicates that the meaning of the word is, "has undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents." Whether such is applied to the MANY times, AFTER the Consecration that Paul speaks of bread, wine, body and blood. The meaning of "is" is "is." It's not "changed."

4. Is there a "change?" IN MY HUMBLE OPINION (and thus NOT doctrine, NOT dogma), sure. But such in not way whatsoever implies alchemy or Aristotle's theory of accidents. I changed my clothes. Does that mean that the clothes I wore underwent an alchemic transubstantiation to the clothes I then put on, and the clothes left behind are simply an Aristotelian accident? Friend, I remind you - until 1215 or 1551, the RCC say NO REASON or NEED or SUPPORT for such a concept of "change" (a word not appearing in ANY Eucharistic text). The Orthodox churches, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodist STILL don't. I've checked my dictionaries and I found NONE that said the word "change" (which doesn't appear) means "underwent an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents."

4. Friend, IF the RCC had left this whole medieval theory where it was intended - as just A possible THEORY about things - then neither you or I would even have heard of it. It would have passed away along with the two pagan ideas that it embraced and used. But the RCC made it all DOGMA in 1551, shortly after Luther's death, at the Council of Trent as the basis for another anathema to Luther - who did not teach this theory as dogma (and, of course, it wasn't in his day). 450 years later, it is still the only denomination on the planet to embrace this concept - in any form or degree - and it does as DOGMA.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[boswd]

when the term was first used and when the term became Dogma are not the same date.

Transubstantiation was developed to fight growing heresy in the Gnostics beliefs, The Gnostics did not disappear. Their beliefs continued. And it was also developed to answer questions on "how come it still taste like bread and wine?"

You seem to promote that the Dogma of Transubstantiation is the theory that is a precise, exact, determination of 'HOW" the change occurs.

All I'm asking is if you can post some sources that show this. As I stated out all the sources I came across not one was any decription of how the change occurs. NONE.

But you hold to and promote that is exactly what Transubstantiation does and would love to see your source.

 

[boswd]

Ok here is wiki's definition

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις (metousiosis)) means the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist while all that is accessible to the senses remains as before.[1][2]




what is it that you find controversial?



also here are some time tables on the term

The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Savardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133), in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use.[3] In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood."[1]

so this was used well before Luther's time.


I still can not find where it is explaining AWAY the Mystery of "HOW" the change occurs.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

when the term was first used and when the term became Dogma are not the same date.

Transubstantiation was developed to fight growing heresy in the Gnostics beliefs

No. Transubstantiation was developed centuries LATER than Gnosticism. It was developed in a mileau where virtually NONE denied Real Presence. It was made dogma in 1551 vis-a-vis Luther who also did not deny Real Presence and who was not a Gnosticist.

I already addressed your other issue several times now, and find it less than helpful to copy and paste the same things I've already posted. I've explained what transubstantiation is and what it says vis-a-vis the Sacrament in Catholicism.

what is it that you find controversial?



also here are some time tables on the term

The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Savardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133), in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use.[3] In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood."[1]

so this was used well before Luther's time.


I still can not find where it is explaining AWAY the Mystery of "HOW" the change occurs.

1. It was controversal at the time. The quotations of that have already been provided. It's controversal STILL since there is one out of the 35,000 denominations the RCC insists exist that holds to it.

2. Yes, my Catholic teachers explained that the theory goes back to the 9th century. You claim it was the 12th century. Okay. It was somehow officially embraced by the RCC in 1215 (the exact status of such seems unclear) and made dogma in 1551. I think the EO has used the word twice in its history but has made it clear it does not mean the word as the RCC does. Luther didn't accept it as dogma - but then it wasn't during his lifetime. The anathema to him on this point was after his death.

3. WHY is it controversal? My guess would be because one denomination supports it and 34,999 don't, it is obviously without any support from Scripture or Tradition and not even suggested until the 9th (or according to you, the 12th century), because it's void of any biblical or traditional support, it's moot and creates textual difficulties? That would just be MY guess. Frankly, if it were just A theory of the middle ages as it seems to have been intended, I sincerely doubt either of us would have even heard of it - it would have passed just like the two theories it embraces. But the Council of Trent made it DOGMA as a tool for an additional anathema toward Luther (albeit after the fact) - and now it CANNOT change or delete or demote it and all MUST accept it with docility (well, Catholics do). Like I said, as a pure theory - I'd doubt it would be controversal or even that anyone but a few church historians would have even heard of it.




.

 

[boswd]

I didn't say it was developed before Gnostics came into being. I said it was used to fight off their heretical views of what they felt was the Eucharist, which is more akin to spiritual presence, which started gaining popularity at the time.

My whole point is of my argument is You are giving the RCC's definition on Transub. more than what it really is. you have claimed it is an exact, precise account of HOW the change happens and you are applying more to their view then what it really is.

All it says is though the species of the bread and wine still look and taste like bread and wine the properties have changed to Christ's Body and Blood.

There is none of this explaining AWAY the Mystery, there is no detailed explaination on HOW this happens.

But you keep claiming that they do and I would love to see your sources. Because as I've stated I can not for the life of me find one that does.

 

[simonthezealot]

denominations the RCC insists exist that holds to it.

2. Yes, my Catholic teachers explained that the theory goes back to the 9th century. You claim it was the 12th century. Okay. It was somehow officially embraced by the RCC in 1215 (the exact status of such seems unclear) and made dogma in 1551.




.

Innocent the 3rd pushed 70 plus laws on Christendom during this councel in less than a month, not allowing debate from the 400+ bishops... of these transubstantiation and auricular confession canons were established.

 

[Kristos]

EO don't agree with Lutherans on this. I think we align more with the Catholic view, just without all the definitions and details.

We don't say - "there is truly your presence in this..."

We say "Truly this is..."

 

[student ad x]

MOD HAT ON
​

​

Several posts have been removed in a thread cleanup. A poster without a Christian icon has been posting in this area. All posts that replied to the deleted posts have been removed to retain thread integrity. My apologies to the participants.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[tansy]

Interesting discussion.

Whilst it doesn't particularly bother me whether the bread and wine literally change or not...I believe that Christ is particularly present at or in the Eucharist, whatever one's viewpoint - I do wonder about Jesus saying of the bread and wine at the Last Supper 'This is my body, this is my blood'.
If Jesus said this whilst He was actually sitting there before them, still physically alive, how could the bread and wine be literally His body and blood? Or was He saying it will be, after His death? Or what? (For those who believe in Transubstantiation)...or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

EO don't agree with Lutherans on this.

We say "Truly this is..."

... as do Lutherans. Read the opening post.

What we do NOT say (dogmatically, anyway) is that the bread and wine have undergone an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents. Thus, we embrace Real Presence but not Transubstantiation. Perhaps you're saying the EO disagrees.




.

 

[Kristos]

just because we don't speculate about the details of the change doesn't mean we don't believe there is one.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.




.

 

[Standing Up]

There is a contrast shown us in the Bible between the always standing priest of the OT and the now sitting High Priest of the NT who is Christ Jesus.

Hbr. 10:11 And every (OT) priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

Hbr. 10:12 But this man (Christ Jesus), after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

One stands, one sits.

He sits for two reasons:

v 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. (because He is the King)

v 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (no more sacrifice)

v 23 Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering; (for he [is] faithful that promised (There is a choice here)

 

[Schroeder]

what about john 6:63. he speaks of this body and blood and says the words i speak are spirit and they are life. 1 cor 12 says we are given the spirit to drink. WHY, because our salvation is partaking in the sacrifice of christ through the Spirit. It is the SPIRIT that bring us to his work, his body and blood he sacrificed. We are saved through the SPirit or baptism of the SPirit. All this you all are argueing about or discussing or trying to figure out who is right and wrong on its meaning or usage or whatever are all wrong. ITS ALL ABOUT THE SPIRIT. Not ordances or rite or sacraments etc.

 

[MrPolo]

what about john 6:63

First, remember the part in John 6 when Jesus says "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life..." Then text says some of the disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can accept it." And Jesus repeated Himself and some of them abandoned Him. You raise a critical point, however, that Jesus DID sometimes speak metaphorically. Soooooo...the disciples would have known He sometimes spoke metaphorically. BUT...what happened when Jesus said "eat my flesh, drink my blood." Did they say, "OH! He's of course speaking metaphorically as He sometimes does!" By no means, they took Him quite literally, and Jesus repeated His assertion when they questioned Him!

Secondly, think of Jesus holding up the bread at the last supper. He said, "This is my body, it will be given up for you." So what was given up on the Cross? A metaphor of Jesus' body or actually Jesus' body? Well---literally Jesus' body!

Third, leading up to the middle of John 6 is Jesus multiplying bread (6:1-14) and Jesus walking on water (6:16-24). To say He proceeds with a symbolic-only interpretation after performing two miracles, one related to bread, does not fit the context.

And fourth, so what does John 6:63 mean? I think St. John Chrysostom, ca 390 A.D., explains this verse well:

His meaning is, 'Ye must hear spiritually what relateth to Me, for he who heareth carnally is not profited​

In other words, you cannot understand "eat my flesh" in a carnal way, i.e. as a worldly person understands it. You must understand it spiritually, theologically. It's not cannibalism. The Eucharist is rather Christ Himself, recognized only by faith. It does not mean the Eucharist is just a symbol. It means the Eucharist can only be UNDERSTOOD with a spiritual mind.

 

[Schroeder]

First, remember the part in John 6 when Jesus says "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life..." Then text says some of the disciples said, "This is a hard saying, who can accept it." And Jesus repeated Himself and some of them abandoned Him. You raise a critical point, however, that Jesus DID sometimes speak metaphorically. Soooooo...the disciples would have known He sometimes spoke metaphorically. BUT...what happened when Jesus said "eat my flesh, drink my blood." Did they say, "OH! He's of course speaking metaphorically as He sometimes does!" By no means, they took Him quite literally, and Jesus repeated His assertion when they questioned Him!

Where does it say they took him literally. i dont see that verse. Some did take him literaly which is why they left. They were not interested in what he was trying to say they were there for the show.

Secondly, think of Jesus holding up the bread at the last supper. He said, "This is my body, it will be given up for you." So what was given up on the Cross? A metaphor of Jesus' body or actually Jesus' body? Well---literally Jesus' body!

He was partaking in the passover meal. not eucharist. He was not creating the eucharist sacrament either. He did the work the way we partake of it is through the Spirit. He was explaining the mystery of the passover by showing what it looked forward to. Him and his work.

Third, leading up to the middle of John 6 is Jesus multiplying bread (6:1-14) and Jesus walking on water (6:16-24). To say He proceeds with a symbolic-only interpretation after performing two miracles, one related to bread, does not fit the context.

They have nothing to do with this passage. read verses 26-31. this is the context of the rest of the passage. he is proving he is from God. verse 35 says who ever comes to him will never go hungry and who ever believes will never go thirsty. You know John 7:37-39. Context context. This verse kind of sinks the whole eucharist idea.

And fourth, so what does John 6:63 mean? I think St. John Chrysostom, ca 390 A.D., explains this verse well:

His meaning is, 'Ye must hear spiritually what relateth to Me, for he who heareth carnally is not profited
​

In other words, you cannot understand "eat my flesh" in a carnal way, i.e. as a worldly person understands it. You must understand it spiritually, theologically. It's not cannibalism. The Eucharist is rather Christ Himself, recognized only by faith. It does not mean the Eucharist is just a symbol. It means the Eucharist can only be UNDERSTOOD with a spiritual mind.

He is translating through the theology of eucharist. Nice try. sounds like if I cant understand it I am not Spiritual enough. I am sure they used this ploy alot to make themselves above the rest of there flock. As i pointed out in my last post, the part you ignore there are other places to explain what is being spoke of here.

 

[SpiritDriven]

The real presence of Christ is in you....not in the Wine or Bread

The problem with the Eucherist is that you will not find that word anywhere in the Bible....but worse still the Cup has been made into a Symbol of Idolatry.

It comes from the days when people where taught that you had to go to Church, you had to partake in the Eucherist....or you where not saved, or you would lose your salvation.

It was a control measure of a mostly illiterate population, to get them to come in the Church doors and put money in the collection plate.

The Bible was on the Banned Books list, and anybody who dared argue was labelled a heretic and burned at the Stake....anybody found with a copy of the Scriptures was burned at the Stake....then their house was burned to be sure any hidden copies burned with the House.

These so called representatives of Christ had a free hand to preach anything they liked......the Satanic hand print is all over this Churches history.

People have wised up, most people can read Bibles for themselves now, they have learned that....God sees the heart....

All religiouse ceremony and tradition goes into the dust bin of History with that relisation.