Theology of Transubstantiation

[chevyontheriver]

Very informative historical analysis of the idea of the Real Presence and how we should be able to come together, all sorts of Christians, on the historic understanding of the Real Presence and even the term 'transubstantiation' if understood carefully.

The Theology of Transubstantiation by Mark Bauerlein | First Things Media

Let me know what you think.

 

[public hermit]

It's interesting at about 7.00 or so, Bauerlein reads a commission statement (Catholic/Anglican dialogue) that says that "becoming" doesn't imply a material change. But, doesn't the doctrine of transubstantiation, as Aquinas used Aristotle, mean that the matter (substance?) changes, but not the form? Just curious. I think if they can agree on "real presence" even if they disagree on the minutiae, then all for the better.

I'm Reformed, but I have never liked Calvin's position, which is since Christ is not ubiquitous (as Luther thought), because Christ is at the right hand of the Father (whatever that means) then the "real presence" is somehow a transmission of the Spirit who transcends time and space, connecting us to Christ in heaven...Ugh. Whatever. It's a mystery, but Calvin's rendering isn't that helpful, to me.

Edit: I just realized what forum this is. Sorry y'all.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

Hi I was an alter boy and sure know what the unconsecrated wafers and wine tastes like and after they are consecrated they tasted exactly the same way. So it is not a miracle like moses turning the water to blood as it would not be drinkable. So what really takes place you can call a mystery or what ever you like but in the passage where this comes up John 6 Jesus disciples had a problem with eating His flesh and drinking His blood and Jesus addressed this issue and 61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 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. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.
The book of John has a thesis statement in ch 20 0 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

John 6 before Jesus gets to the you must eat my flesh part He brings up the thesis statement about belief
28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ”[fn]
32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

 

[chevyontheriver]

It's interesting at about 7.00 or so, Bauerlein reads a commission statement (Catholic/Anglican dialogue) that says that "becoming" doesn't imply a material change. But, doesn't the doctrine of transubstantiation, as Aquinas used Aristotle, mean that the matter (substance?) changes, but not the form? Just curious. I think if they can agree on "real presence" even if they disagree on the minutiae, then all for the better.

"Becoming does not imply a material change"
"This becoming does not follow the physical laws of this world"

I interpret them to mean here no change in the look and feel. The becoming is real, but it does not affect the look and feel. If we were both Aristotelians we would say the accidents (or appearances) don't change but the essence (or form) changes. It's no longer bread, it's Jesus. Not Jesus exactly as he was when he walked the earth, but actually, without appearing to be so. I think they uncarefully used the term 'material', which can be thought of in multiple ways. Better if they had not used that specific word.

I'm Reformed, but I have never liked Calvin's position, which is since Christ is not ubiquitous (as Luther thought), because Christ is at the right hand of the Father (whatever that means) then the "real presence" is somehow a transmission of the Spirit who transcends time and space, connecting us to Christ in heaven...Ugh. Whatever. It's a mystery, but Calvin's rendering isn't that helpful, to me.

It IS a mystery. In fact the word 'sacramentum' is a cognate with the Greek word 'mysyerion'. So a sacrament is both a sign and a mystery. It is real enough, even earthy enough, and yet transcendent because it is of God.

Back in my salad years, when I was green in judgment, I couldn't even see the difference between the Calvinist and Catholic views. Or not enough that it matters. But then when looking at the Orthodox view, which is essentially Catholic but not defining everything so tightly, I saw that the Calvinist view was trying to avoid the realism that the Scripture is soaked in. And that the deniers of the Real Presence could be encouraged by the Calvinist view. Luther and the Orthodox and the Catholics went for, or actually kept the realism of the Scriptures. Calvin opened the door to a 'symbolism'. To the extent that the symbolism is a reaction against the overtheologizing of the Catholics, I get it. But if they would study Aquinas I think they could see some real merit in his views.

That would take some calm study and dialogue. I think it's possible to do, even though I am seldom encouraged about the prospects of ecumenism any longer. But some people can see some things which make a difference. This conversation based upon the First Things podcast might do that.

Edit: I just realized what forum this is. Sorry y'all.

Your comments above are EXACTLY the kind of thing I was hoping for. Not snide, not attacking, personal, hopeful, inquiring.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hi I was an alter boy and sure know what the unconsecrated wafers and wine tastes like and after they are consecrated they tasted exactly the same way. So it is not a miracle like moses turning the water to blood as it would not be drinkable.

Right. It is the converse of that. A change that does not change the look and feel, but does change the reality.

So what really takes place you can call a mystery or what ever you like but in the passage where this comes up John 6 Jesus disciples had a problem with eating His flesh and drinking His blood and Jesus addressed this issue and 61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you?

A whole bunch of people walked away from Jesus that day. But He didn't go after them saying it was symbolic, not to worry. If it were to be just symbolic I expect He would have said so, chased after them, clarifying everything, and they would have returned. Jesus stood firm. But they didn't return and the disciples themselves were shaken. What do you think of that?

Oh, and did you listen to the whole thing?

 

[Markie Boy]

A couple thoughts.

1. We see the idea of the Real Presence all over the Early Church, but Transubstantiation was not defined for centuries afterward. Does anyone really know the details of how - the only honest answer I see is no. Is it Transub or Consubstantiation - I think just saying there is a true presence is as far as we can honestly go. To argue beyond that is like arguing which color is best - nobody truly knows or can prove it.

The whole idea of Scholasticism was a giant wrong turn in understanding our relationship with God IMHO. The idea of Mystery is largely lost, and with it the humility of saying "we don't know the details, but we believe." Thomas Aquinas had many ideas that seem problematic today, like death penalty for heretics.

2. This is the big one for me - IF this is a miracle of Transubstantiation. All of Jesus' miracles were visibly verifiable signs to show that he was who he said. IF this is a literal miracle of actual change like transubstantiation says - It's the ONLY miracle Jesus did where there was absolutely nothing visibly verifiable.

That's quite something to contend with. Scholasticism to me was not a good turning point.

 

[Markie Boy]

I have to add this, as I just read John 6. At 6:63 where he says: It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.

Then 6:68 Peter says: Lord where should we go? You have the words of eternal life;

It almost sounds as though he's replying saying now we get it - you have the words of eternal life. He doesn't say "you have the Eucharist" of eternal life."

Among this confusion, to say Transubstantiation is clear as a bell is a quantum leap for me.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

In Hebrews we are told we can enter behind the veil at any time and when I direct my prayers and thoughts to Jesus I am with Him. There is no magic words to pronounce over the elements that can bring me closer to Jesus. My atonement was shed by the blood on Calvary. It is finished means paid in full. My debt is paid and I have the Holy Spirit indwelling me at all times. Why would I need as it were a booster shot that brings me closer to God at mass and then apparently wears off again as i need to take it again? The seal of adoption into the kingdom of God is the filling of the Holy Spirit by which we pray Abba Father and in this sense once we are born of the Spirit we are sealed and have that witness in our lives. The Spirit is also God and if He indwells us at all times we are not lacking in the access to God.

 

[zippy2006]

Let me know what you think.

Interesting, especially the historical background.

I certainly believe him when he says that these days "Transubstantiation" is more of an identity marker than anything else, but the prospect of Protestants affirming transubstantiation is curious to me. It seems somewhat plausible in certain circles, but I'm not familiar enough with Protestant sacramental theology to know for sure.

It's interesting at about 7.00 or so, Bauerlein reads a commission statement (Catholic/Anglican dialogue) that says that "becoming" doesn't imply a material change. But, doesn't the doctrine of transubstantiation, as Aquinas used Aristotle, mean that the matter (substance?) changes, but not the form? Just curious.

That quote comes from a Catholic-Anglican dialogue that presumably intended to avoid Aristotelian philosophy altogether, so I wouldn't interpret the phrase according to Aristotelian categories. A few relevant Aristotelian distinctions would be matter/form and substance/accident. I think you are probably right that Thomas would take issue with the idea that there is no change of matter, but his definition of matter was rather different than our colloquial definition.

 

[public hermit]

Your comments above are EXACTLY the kind of thing I was hoping for. Not snide, not attacking, personal, hopeful, inquiring.

I just now saw your response. Your remarks are helpful. Thank you.

 

[public hermit]

A few relevant Aristotelian distinctions would be matter/form and substance/accident.

Thank you. I definitely screwed up Aquinas. The substance changes, while the accidents remain the same. I didn't know the context behind the dialogue, so that helps.

 

[zippy2006]

Thank you. I definitely screwed up Aquinas. The substance changes, while the accidents remain the same. I didn't know the context behind the dialogue, so that helps.

Not a problem. If your point was that a Thomist would take issue with that language then I think you're actually right. And I learned something because I had to go to Thomas before conceding that point to you.

Interesting topic.