The real presence, how does it work.

[ViaCrucis]

Transubstantiation is an "apt description" according to Catholic teaching, it uses Aristotelian ideas about substance and accidents (essence and properties would be modern terms that people are more likely to understand).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say on the matter:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."204​

It isn't exactly an explanation of the mystery. It's more of case of creating vocabulary for referring to the consecrated host and wine as in some way changed so as to be/become the body and blood of Christ.

While, traditionally, Lutherans don't like the term Transubstantiation, it's also true that we can't say that Transubstantiation is technically not true. It is, perhaps, most accurate to say that we don't know that there is a "change of substance", from one to another; so we can't say positively that there is. But we can say, with confidence, that the bread is the body of Christ, and the wine is the blood of Christ. And is means is. And that was not only our obvious problem with Zwingli, but also our problem with Calvin, who though maintaining a kind of real presence denied the objective and local presence of Christ's actual flesh and blood. It gets to a bigger issue of Christology as well, Lutherans view the Calvinist view as promoting a problematic Christology by denying the full communication of the two natures: i.e. Calvin asserted that since Christ's body is in heaven, it cannot literally be present in the Supper, because Jesus' body is limited by His human nature; whereas Lutherans assert that Christ's humanity by the union with His Divinity is not limited, thus Christ can be physically and locally present anywhere and everywhere. At the same time, Calvinists have asserted that Lutheran Christology is problematic.

Basically Lutherans see the Calvinist view as erring toward Nestorianism, while Calvinists see Lutherans as erring toward Eutychianism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

it uses Aristotelian ideas about substance and accidents (essence and properties would be modern terms that people are more likely to understand).

But I think distorts those terms. "Properties" have more to do with color, shape, etc that do not change the substance. Like a house can be white or blue, big or small, ranch or duplex but it's essence is still a house, a place where people live. Transubstantiation would be like taking that house, keeping the color and shape and saying it is no longer a house. Why, because maybe now it is a tavern, or museum. What changed is our understanding of it, what it now signifies to us.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But I think distorts those terms. "Properties" have more to do with color, shape, etc that do not change the substance. Like a house can be white or blue, big or small, ranch or duplex but it's essence is still a house, a place where people live. Transubstantiation would be like taking that house, keeping the color and shape and saying it is no longer a house. Why, because maybe now it is a tavern, or museum. What changed is our understanding of it, what it now signifies to us.

Yet it is more than what the host and the precious blood signify to us, it is what they are - specifically, the body and the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Jipsah]

Yet it is more than what the host and the precious blood signify to us, it is what they are - specifically, the body and the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

On that we can agree.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yet it is more than what the host and the precious blood signify to us, it is what they are - specifically, the body and the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In what sense is it the "body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ" if it has no cells, corpuscles or DNA?

 

[Philip_B]

Yet it is more than what the host and the precious blood signify to us, it is what they are - specifically, the body and the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

is that not an argument for transignification?

 

[ViaCrucis]

In what sense is it the "body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ" if it has no cells, corpuscles or DNA?

In the sense that He said that it is. When the Son of God says something is, then it is true. In what sense was the thief on the cross righteous and destined for Paradise? In the sense that Jesus said to him, "I tell you truthfully, today you will be with Me in Paradise." What righteousness did the thief have? None, but Christ said, "you will be with Me".

Paul reminds us that Abraham had faith and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Because God is the One who "gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist". When God declares sins forgiven, they're forgiven, when He declares a guilty thief shall be among the righteous, it shall be. When He commands Lazarus to walk out of the grave, the dead live. When He says one is born of God by "water and the Spirit" how can water do such a thing? Because He says so. When He takes bread and wine and says "this is My body" and "this is My blood"--it is.

I'm not going to go to a baptismal font, and examine the water therein and discover it's anything other than ordinary water, it's just H2O. And yet, God has placed His own Triune Name in that water. Can I take the bread of the Eucharist and find skin cells, will I discover DNA and the genome of a Palestinian Jew? No, but but what does Jesus say it is? "This is My body". And so it is.

The bread and wine don't simply come to signify the body and the blood; this is the body and the blood. Does it make sense, can this be understood through any kind of philosophy? Of course not. If anything it's what the Greeks called foolishness, it's ridiculous--and yet it is the foolish things in which God's wisdom is on display. It is in the weak things that God's power is manifest.

A virgin conceived and bore a Child, that Child was also God. The God-Man was nailed to a Roman cross, and then three days after He died He stopped being dead and rose again. And now He sits at the right hand of the Father with all power and authority as the King Messiah, Son of David, the King of Israel, the King of the Nations, the King of kings. Where is He? With the Father. Where is the Father? In heaven, everywhere, "One God and Father who is over all, in all, and through all." "The heavens cannot contain You, not even the heavens of heavens." "For heaven is His throne, and the earth His footstool."

"And He put all things under His feet and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." - Ephesians 1:22-23

There is so much more we don't know than we know. We are beholding things through a dim glass, such a tiny sliver of it all. One day we will know, we'll get it. But right now, we can do nothing but rely on every word which proceeds from God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

is that not an argument for transignification?

Never heard of it, sounds like a lovely new idea, who invented it?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

In the sense that He said that it is. When the Son of God says something is, then it is true.

I am not challenging the reality but I am questioning the language of explanation. You are basically saying, "We don't know. It just is." OK.

"Transubstantiation" assumes that there is an invisible thing that is independent of its accidental properties, that the substance (Christ) now has the attributes of bread and wine. Do all things have this invisible aspect? Could my pen be miraculously turned into something else. while still looking like a pen?

 

[Philip_B]

Never heard if it, sounds like a lovely new idea, who invented it?

Schillabeeckx I think used the term.

 

[BobRyan]

In the Lord's Supper, many believe that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ

Which is puzzling since at the actual last Supper Christ Himself was speaking - in His real body and blood - and no disciple bites Him at that supper.

Puzzling as well since in John 6 Jesus said that eating literal flesh and blood is worthless/useless when it comes to obtaining eternal life -
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. ...
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”
68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
John 6 is a great example of a chapter where people are told to eat Christ's flesh - and no one bites Christ.

John begins his gospel with this same point -- John 1:14 "The WORD became FLESH"

Other Christian denominations may have a different understanding of the Lord's Supper, viewing it as a symbolic commemoration of Jesus' death

Because they read John 6 and also 1 Cor 11
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

In "remembrance" -- in memorial
It proclaims "the Lord's death"

Where do you stand?

I stand with John 6 and 1 Cor 11 which means I don't go for the suggestion that someone in some church has the "power" to "confect the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ"

So then I do not believe the following traditions to be accurate --

Paragraph 1374 of the CCC:​

The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.​

​

"The apostate priest does not lose the power to confect the Eucharist or forgive sins through the sacrament of Penance. ...​

Catholic Digest – Jan 1995, pg 126​

 

[BobRyan]

Well if as we see here #31 -- "confecting the body,blood, soul, divinity" of Christ is a tradition without Bible basis - what about the "Real presence"?

Is there a "real presence" teaching in the Bible?

Matt 18:20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

Turns out - no "confecting" needed at all.

And in the case of each Christian - we have this

Col 1:27 To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

 

[BobRyan]

I am not challenging the reality but I am questioning the language of explanation. You are basically saying, "We don't know. It just is." OK.

"Transubstantiation" assumes that there is an invisible thing that is independent of its accidental properties, that the substance (Christ) now has the attributes of bread and wine. Do all things have this invisible aspect? Could my pen be miraculously turned into something else. while still looking like a pen?

Sounds a bit "dark ages" to me.

 

[Jipsah]

Which is puzzling since at the actual last Supper Christ Himself was speaking - in His real body and blood - and no disciple bites Him at that supper.

Bob, I know you think that response is somehow astonishly clever, but it isn't. It comes off as you dismissing the word of our Lord Himself with a an embarrassingly unfunny joke. It hasn't become any funnier, or more persuasive, with endless repetition. If that's the best response you can muster than you'd probably be better served by trying to change the subject, or just keeping silent to avoid, as the saying goes, "removing all doubt".

Puzzling as well since in John 6 Jesus said that eating literal flesh and blood is worthless/useless when it comes to obtaining eternal life -

He said that of His Flesh and Blood? Which verses are you referring to there?

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. ...

Except, of courer, when He says "Take, eat, this is my Body", right?

John 6 is a great example of a chapter where people are told to eat Christ's flesh - and no one bites Christ.

Well yes, they did. "24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you".

The Word of God , by Whom "all things were made; and without Whom was not any thing made that was made", said "This is My Body". And your denial of what He said is embodied in a sad, lame joke. To paraphrase Shakespeare: "Your jest will savour but of shallow wit, When thousands weep more than did laugh at it."

 

[Jipsah]

Sounds a bit "dark ages" to me.

I'm sure it does. Maybe you could add a hurrr hurrr durrr just for emphasis.

 

[BobRyan]

I am not challenging the reality but I am questioning the language of explanation. You are basically saying, "We don't know. It just is." OK.

"Transubstantiation" assumes that there is an invisible thing that is independent of its accidental properties, that the substance (Christ) now has the attributes of bread and wine. Do all things have this invisible aspect? Could my pen be miraculously turned into something else. while still looking like a pen?

Sounds a bit "dark ages" to me.

I'm sure it does.

Maybe you could add a hurrr hurrr durrr

Interesting suggestion --


Ok so then something like "your pen could actually be a horse in 'substance' and you would not knowwww it.. hurrrr hurr" ?

is that what you are thinking??

 

[BobRyan]

In the Lord's Supper, many believe that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ

Which is puzzling since at the actual last Supper Christ Himself was speaking - in His real body and blood - and no disciple bites Him at that supper.


Puzzling as well since in John 6 Jesus said that eating literal flesh and blood is worthless/useless when it comes to obtaining eternal life -

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. ...​

66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”​

68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.​

John 6 is a great example of a chapter where people are told to eat Christ's flesh - and no one bites Christ.

John begins his gospel with this same point -- John 1:14 "The WORD became FLESH"

Bob, I know you think that response is somehow astonishly clever

I prefer paying attention to the Bible details - as the better solution than to keep dodging the point and merely slamming the poster who dares to point to an inconvenient Bible detail - when that detail does not fit your preferences.

He said that of His Flesh and Blood? Which verses are you referring to there?

Still not reading the post??

48 I am the bread of life.

(not "some day in the future I WILL BE).

49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

I have not met a single Christian (and that includes Catholics) that claims that in John 6 the people were seeing Christ in the form of literal bread falling out of the sky. It is clearly symbolism .. and we all know it.

No amount of slamming the person that posts these inconvenient Bible details - causes them to vanish from the chapter.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Which is puzzling since at the actual last Supper Christ Himself was speaking - in His real body and blood - and no disciple bites Him at that supper.

One hopes that you realise that this is a rather silly idea.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

in John 6 Jesus said that eating literal flesh and blood is worthless/useless

I think that you will discover that no such things is said in John chapter six.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Sounds a bit "dark ages" to me.




Interesting suggestion --


Ok so then something like "your pen could actually be a horse in 'substance' and you would not knowwww it.. hurrrr hurr" ?

is that what you are thinking??

That seems to be the implication of "transubstantiation". Unless we think of substance more idealistically. As in the substance of an argument or an explanation, the substance of a belief or a world view.