Transubstantiation

[friend of]

I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.

Is that bad?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.

Is that bad?

This is a Catholic doctrine. Maybe your thinking about converting? Either way, I guess if you keep it to yourself and not teach it to others it's ok!
Blessings.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

Believing a physical contradiction is both irrational and illogical, so no not good at all IMHO.

In Him,
Bill

 

[Jonaitis]

I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.

Is that bad?

Yeah, that kind of falls into heresy among most Protestant thought.

 

[RileyG]

I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.

Is that bad?

Have you considered becoming Catholic Or are you studying their theology?

 

[RileyG]

Good Day,

Believing a physical contradiction is both irrational and illogical, so no not good at all IMHO.

In Him,
Bill

Transubstantiation means the substance (i.e. the essence) of the bread and wine change into the Body and Blood of Christ. There is no change in physical or biological chemistry.

From a Protestant perspective, Transubstantiation is heretical because most do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Communion).

Blessings

 

[DragonFox91]

Despite being a Protestant, I do think Protestants took a little too harsh a stand on SOME of the Roman Catholic teachings. So I don’t think saying ‘hey, maybe we got this wrong’ is necessarily bad. But I definitely find a lot of problems w/ their transubstantiation teaching.

I think Lutherans kind of take a middle-ground stance on it. Have you looked into that?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think I believe in transubstantiation despite being Protestant.

Is that bad?

Do you believe in Transubstantiation, or do you just believe in the Real Presence?

All Christians up until the 1500's, with the exception of certain heretics, believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in His Supper, that it is His real flesh and blood.

Transubstantiation is a specific interpretation of the Real Presence that maintains a philosophical distinction between the substance and the accidents; and then says that the substance of the elements are changed from bread and wine to Christ's flesh and blood while still maintaining the accidents (so that by all outward perception it remains bread and wine, though the substance itself has changed).

Lutherans took issue with Transubstantiation on philosophical grounds rather than theological grounds. And specifically Lutherans also wanted to insist on a clear distinction between sacrifice and sacrament. In the Sacrament of the Supper no sacrifice is made to God, but rather Christ's once-and-perfect sacrifice is given to us and for us through His own flesh and blood present "in, with, and under" the bread and the wine.

So when you say you believe in Transubstantiation, are you saying you believe in Transubstantiation itself, or that you have come to embrace the universally Christian belief that the Lord's Supper is Jesus' own flesh and blood?

Because lots of Protestants believe in the Real Presence, but generally don't believe in Transubstantiation per se.

The denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist was the false doctrine and innovation introduced by certain Reformed teachers, such as Ulrich Zwingli. Zwinglianism is the most common view among many Protestants today, but it is an aberration and a perversion of both Christianity on the whole as well as the Reformation specifically.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

Transubstantiation means the substance (i.e. the essence) of the bread and wine change into the Body and Blood of Christ. There is no change in physical or biological chemistry.

From a Protestant perspective, Transubstantiation is heretical because
most do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Communion).

Blessings

In light of the OT sacrificial meal on the sacrificed flesh, I suspect it is a misunderstanding of Christ's meaning about eating his body and blood.
I think he was telling them that the bread and wine would be the NT sacrificial meal on the sacrifice itself, corresponding to the OT sacrificial meal on the sacrifice itself shared by the Israelite and the priest who offered it (who ate his portion up at the Temple) where, in partaking of the meal on the sacrifice itself, they were partaking in the benefits of the sacrifice.

 

[Jonaitis]

The denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist was the false doctrine and innovation introduced by certain Reformed teachers, such as Ulrich Zwingli. Zwinglianism is the most common view among many Protestants today, but it is an aberration and a perversion of both Christianity on the whole as well as the Reformation specifically.

Don't leave out the Reformed view (Spiritual Presence). It is one of the least well-known positions that affirms the Real Presence without conflating it with the elements themselves.

 

[friend of]

Have you considered becoming Catholic Or are you studying their theology?

I am thinking of studying Augustine right now.

 

[Clare73]

Don't leave out the Reformed view (Spiritual Presence). It is one of the least well-known positions that affirms the Real Presence without conflating it with the elements themselves.

Where is that presented?

 

[Jonaitis]

Where is that presented?

It was the original position of Calvin (outlined in his Institutes) and Martin Bucer, and later revised/expounded by the Puritans. It is the confessional position of all the Reformed Churches. If you look for it, you will find it. I hold to this position, and do not deny it as a means of grace (albeit a different approach).

 

[friend of]

Do you believe in Transubstantiation, or do you just believe in the Real Presence?

All Christians up until the 1500's, with the exception of certain heretics, believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in His Supper, that it is His real flesh and blood.

Transubstantiation is a specific interpretation of the Real Presence that maintains a philosophical distinction between the substance and the accidents; and then says that the substance of the elements are changed from bread and wine to Christ's flesh and blood while still maintaining the accidents (so that by all outward perception it remains bread and wine, though the substance itself has changed).

Lutherans took issue with Transubstantiation on philosophical grounds rather than theological grounds. And specifically Lutherans also wanted to insist on a clear distinction between sacrifice and sacrament. In the Sacrament of the Supper no sacrifice is made to God, but rather Christ's once-and-perfect sacrifice is given to us and for us through His own flesh and blood present "in, with, and under" the bread and the wine.

So when you say you believe in Transubstantiation, are you saying you believe in Transubstantiation itself, or that you have come to embrace the universally Christian belief that the Lord's Supper is Jesus' own flesh and blood?

Because lots of Protestants believe in the Real Presence, but generally don't believe in Transubstantiation per se.

The denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist was the false doctrine and innovation introduced by certain Reformed teachers, such as Ulrich Zwingli. Zwinglianism is the most common view among many Protestants today, but it is an aberration and a perversion of both Christianity on the whole as well as the Reformation specifically.

-CryptoLutheran

I'll have to get back to you. I do believe in the real presence of Jesus in the sacraments, but what makes that different from traditional Protestant thinking?

 

[Clare73]

It was the original position of Calvin (outlined in his Institutes) and Martin Bucer, and later revised/expounded by the Puritans. It is the confessional position of all the Reformed Churches. If you look for it, you will find it. I hold to this position,
and do not deny it as a means of grace (albeit a different approach).

I may go a little further, in that the OT sacrificial mean was on the actual sacrifice itself, thereby the NT sacrificial meal being the actual sacrifice itself.

But that does not include a "real presence," which assumes a living presence, for the OT sacrificial meal was not on living flesh, but on the slaughtered sacrificed flesh.

 

[Jonaitis]

I may go a little further, in that the OT sacrificial mean was on the actual sacrifice itself, thereby the NT sacrificial meal being the actual sacrifice itself.

But that does not include a "real presence," which assumes a living presence, for the OT sacrificial meal was not on living flesh, but on the slaughtered sacrificed flesh.

We infer a "spiritual presence," in that Christ is present spiritually in our participation of the sacraments. We are the bridge between the Real Presence and Zwingli's position of its absence in the elements themselves.

What does that mean?

The Lord's Supper strengthens and increases the recipient's faith, by the Spirit, through our participation in its illustration of the gospel and its application to us. In other words, the sacrament preaches through imagery, whereas Scripture preaches through words, if that makes sense. The Spirit operates through both the word and the sacraments as a means of grace to encourage and augment our faith in Christ. This is how we understand it as a "means of grace." Christ's benefits are richly showered through our faith in it, rather than our mere participation of eating the elements. The elements are elements, nothing infused, mixed, under, in, through, whatever they want to add to it. Rather, our faith allows Christ and His suffering to be presented through its administration.

Of course, I am presenting the Puritan view, Calvin's position is a little different. Let's just say, he began its exploration, but we don't think it was quite accurate. It sounded too "Romanish."

 

[Jonaitis]

Calvin did beautifully pointed out, if I can remember, that transubstantiation implies a form of Miaphysitism, that is, by indirectly implying that Christ's human nature is attributed with divine qualities (omnipresence).

 

[Clare73]

We infer a "spiritual presence," in that Christ is present spiritually in our participation of the sacraments. We are the bridge between the Real Presence and Zwingli's position of its absence in the elements themselves.

What does that mean?

The Lord's Supper strengthens and increases the recipient's faith, by the Spirit, through our participation in its illustration of the gospel and its application to us. In other words, the sacrament preaches through imagery, whereas Scripture preaches through words, if that makes sense. The Spirit operates through both the word and the sacraments as a means of grace to encourage and augment our faith in Christ. This is how we understand it as a "means of grace." Christ's benefits are richly showered through our faith in it, rather than our mere participation of eating the elements. The elements are elements, nothing infused, mixed, under, in, through, whatever they want to add to it. Rather, our faith allows Christ and His suffering to be presented through its administration.

Of course, I am presenting the Puritan view, Calvin's position is a little different. Let's just say, he began its exploration, but we don't think it was quite accurate. It sounded too "Romanish."

I've got "no quarrel" with the Puritans!

Paul seems to present "proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes" as its purpose (1 Corinthians 11:26).

 

[Jonaitis]

How does its purpose of "proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes" fit in?

How does it not???

 

[Clare73]

How does it not???

I kind of see its purpose as twofold:
NT sacrificial meal, and proclaiming the Lord's death until he comes.

I don't attribute any spiritual presence of the living Christ in the meal, as there was no living presence of the sacrifice in the OT sacrificial meal.
I attribute only the benefits of the sacrifice to the participants.