Why is transubstantiation important?

[Tinker Grey]

I grew up with the understanding that the elements of communion are symbolic (obviously, protestant). Why is it important that one believe that the elements, once blessed, are the actual body and blood of Christ?

Thanks.

 

[drich0150]

Originally I believe it was So that someone could literally full fill John 6:53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
But now I believe that because some religious leaders have signed off on it, that particular faith has no choice but to believe or face the fact that the church leadership is in fact capable of error, and if that were the case then it would bring up alot of other questions that may undermined the foundational beliefs that, particular system of belief is built on.

 

[Chesterton]

I grew up with the understanding that the elements of communion are symbolic (obviously, protestant). Why is it important that one believe that the elements, once blessed, are the actual body and blood of Christ?

Christ didn't actually say it was important to believe it; he said it was important to do it (eat and drink). I myself don't care for the explanation called "transubstantiation"; I don't think it's necessary or helpful; but I still believe I should do what my Lord said to do.

 

[Tinker Grey]

But now I believe that because some religious leaders have signed off on it, that particular faith has no choice but to believe or face the fact that the church leadership is in fact capable of error, and if that were the case then it would bring up alot of other questions that may undermined the foundational beliefs that, particular system of belief is built on.

I suspect there is some truth to that. I do look forward to hearing a Catholic response.

Christ didn't actually say it was important to believe it; he said it was important to do it (eat and drink). I myself don't care for the explanation called "transubstantiation"; I don't think it's necessary or helpful; but I still believe I should do what my Lord said to do.

I was taught more or less the same as you ... we (you) do it because it obeys Christ's commands. We, perhaps, commune with God while meditating on what Jesus did for us.

 

[ebia]

I grew up with the understanding that the elements of communion are symbolic (obviously, protestant). Why is it important that one believe that the elements, once blessed, are the actual body and blood of Christ?

Thanks.

Are we talking about a belief in real presence, or are we talking about transubstantiation which is an explanation of the mechanics of that in terms of aristotlean philosophy. Many Christians believe in real presence without buying into the RCCs attempt to define it in terms of an obsolete philosophic framework, including Eastern Orthodox, most Anglicans and many Lutherans.

Is it important to believe in real presence? I think you are missing a good deal of what is going on if you don't. The concept that exists in Jewish Passover and is transfered to the Christian Eucharist captured in "do this in rememberence of me" isn't just one of remembering in a head sense, but of participating in the original event. When we participate in the eucharist we participate in Christ's death and resurrection and in his explanation of what that is all about.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Are we talking about a belief in real presence, or are we talking about transubstantiation which is an explanation of the mechanics of that in terms of aristotlean philosophy. Many Christians believe in real presence without buying into the RCCs attempt to define it in terms of an obsolete philosophic framework, including Eastern Orthodox, most Anglicans and many Lutherans.

Is it important to believe in real presence? I think you are missing a good deal of what is going on if you don't. The concept that exists in Jewish Passover and is transfered to the Christian Eucharist captured in "do this in rememberence of me" isn't just one of remembering in a head sense, but of participating in the original event. When we participate in the eucharist we participate in Christ's death and resurrection and in his explanation of what that is all about.

I don't understand transubstantiation as being about mechanics. Nor is it merely presence but rather the elements becoming the actual body and blood of Christ.

Consubstantion, as I understand it, is real presence without the transformation of the elements. Christ is present in the elements, but the elements don't become his body and blood.

That is, "trans" is about the transfer of God's substance so that the elements are transmuted into God's substance and "con" is about being along side (with) the substance of bread and wine.

The symbolic stance could be said to be that God/Jesus is present in the act. That is, we commune with God when we obey.

All of these seem equally significant if one is spiritually minded. The second two have the advantage of not having physical evidence that could be examined.

 

[ebia]

I don't understand transubstantiation as being about mechanics. Nor is it merely presence but rather the elements becoming the actual body and blood of Christ.

It's a bit more than that. It's an explanation of exactly what sense they are the actual body and blood, framed in terms of substance and accident, which is irretrievably burried in an Aristotelian understanding of the nature of stuff. It makes absolutely no sense in either a biblical or modern understanding of matter. The wafer (say) after consecration has the substance of the body of Christ and the accident of a piece of bread.

It's one of the RCC's classic bits of over definition. In this case in terms that were highly peculiar to the age when the definition was made.

Consubstantion, as I understand it, is real presence without the transformation of the elements. Christ is present in the elements, but the elements don't become his body and blood.

Consubstantiation gets bandied around a lot to mean a range of different things. Orthodox Christians and most Anglicans understand the elements to become body and blood, but they don't try to define how that is. The wafer becomes the body of Christ while still clearly being a piece of bread and no attempt is made to resolve that paradox.

All of these seem equally significant if one is spiritually minded. The second two have the advantage of not having physical evidence that could be examined.

None have any physical evidence that can be examined, because the whole point of the transubstantiation logic is that the only thing you can test or examine is the accident of the thing.

 

[Tinker Grey]

OK. Fine. I appreciate the information and the distinction.

So why is this significant? So how is this important? How does believing Jesus' presense in the elements, however it is believed, more important/significant than communing with God while contemplating Christ's sacrifice on the cross thru the medium of the elements?

 

[drich0150]

OK. Fine. I appreciate the information and the distinction.

So why is this significant? So how is this important? How does believing Jesus' presense in the elements, however it is believed, more important/significant than communing with God while contemplating Christ's sacrifice on the cross thru the medium of the elements?

I think your over looking the importance (for some) to literally live out all of the perceived commands of scripture.. If you look closely at John 6 it says no one will enter heaven unless he eats my flesh and drinks my blood.. If this very plainly worded part of scripture wasn't meant to be a literal command, then it raises the question, What other commands are to be interpreted as well.. Or, What principle or doctrine is in effect that we are not apart of??

Legalism is the practice of earning your way into heaven by the merit, or the balance of your life's good works.. Literally following the bible to a T is a big part of that.

Also know that belief in This doctrine like many others doesn't automatically preclude you from a relationship with God.. It is just evidence of the type of barriers we install in our various faiths.. All denominations have them to one degree or another.. They all start out as ways to help maintain and protect those young in the Spirit, but ultimately if a person chooses to worship there faith rather than God when they mature then the same barriers that once protected them now act as a denominational prison, and the faith they were supposed to use as a method or vehicle to God now has become a false god in of itself..

Like I said all religion has this potential. It up to the believer, and whether or not they want use religion as a method of seeking out God for themselves, or if they are content with the illusion of being apart of that work. If you honestly seek God no matter where you start, you will find him.

 

[Tinker Grey]

1) Are you suggesting Catholics are legalists?
2) Are there no commands that you think are literal?
3) If you do, then aren't you a legalist?
4) If you don't, then aren't you antinomian?

How could you be obedient at all without being a legalist?

 

[ebia]

OK. Fine. I appreciate the information and the distinction.

So why is this significant? So how is this important? How does believing Jesus' presense in the elements, however it is believed,
more important/significant than communing with God while contemplating Christ's sacrifice on the cross thru the medium of the elements?

It's the difference between participating in and reflecting on something.
Both are worthy things to do, but they are not the same thing.

 

[ebia]

. Double post

 

[drich0150]

How could you be obedient at all without being a legalist?

Legalism is a means to an end.. Rather it is a performance based system, that has a believer place himself in a position to deserve heaven through his actions.
When in fact We have been told that we can never obtain righteousness through our actions..

The reason, we are obedient is not out of obligation or because we are trying to earn salvation.. We are obedient out of a need to physically manifest a deep seeded Love for God..

If you take a married couple who married for love, and then took a couple who married for other reasons, and if they were married for approximately the same amount of time, and if you observed them. During the course of a day, you may find that they may do alot of the same things together and for each other. participate in the same kind of activities, show the same concerns and maybe even have the same goals.. But no matter what the second couple does that looks like the first, There will inevitably be an element missing.. Love..

Without love all of our religious efforts are meaningless.. Remember the Greatest commandment is Love the Lord your God with All of your Being, and the second love your neighbor as yourself.. All of the other commandments are based on these two.

So it is supposed to be with great Love that We approach God when we except Jesus. (not out of a sense of eternal self preservation)So in a sense it's kinda like being married to him. The big difference here is that if we go through the motions of a married couple without the proper reasoning behind it, then all that we build in our life time through our religious efforts will be destroyed when tested.

The legalist, and the Brother with a true relationship with God may do the same things and may even attend the same church. There isn't a specific denomination of legalist although we all have these tendencies. The way to tell them apart is not what they do, but why.. Because any doctrinal beliefs or theological understandings approached in the wrong way can quickly take on a completely different meaning..

This is why we are told to Ask, Seek and knock rather than follow a specific plan of salvation.

1) Are you suggesting Catholics are legalists?

Like I said all religious denominations present barriers between those who wish to know God, and God himself. These barriers or denominational distinctive can in the beginning act as protection for those young in there faiths, but as one Grows spiritually, that person will eventually have to decide to continue either prefect their religion and pass on tradition, or to personally pursue God.. The people who practice religion and blindly pass on tradition are legalist.. These people belong to all faiths, not just catholics or even christianity for that matter.

2) Are there no commands that you think are literal?

Love the Lord my God with All of My Being.

If you do, then aren't you a legalist?

It would honestly depend on why I love The Lord.. Remember even the purest simplest doctrine can be perverted with legalism if not approached out of love for God.

If you don't, then aren't you antinomian?

an⋅ti⋅no⋅mi⋅an   /ˌæn

tɪˈnoʊ

mi

ən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [an-ti-noh-mee-uh

n] Show IPA
–noun a person who maintains that Christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace as set forth in the gospel.


Something like that..
1Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

 

[salida]

I never believed they were the actual elements physically. Where does the bible say specifically its physical if this is what you meant? Jesus said to do this in rememberance of Him - we are to remember His blood and body in that He died for our sins. We christians have the Holy Spirit - but I don't call the Holy Spirit an element or force. Its not - its God.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's the difference between participating in and reflecting on something.
Both are worthy things to do, but they are not the same thing.

How is believing in the presense participating?

How is reflecting not participating?

 

[ebia]

How is believing in the presense participating?

Believing in the presense isn't itself participating, but it's a necessary part of participating in Jesus death and resurrection and his meal that explains that.

How is reflecting not participating?

Reflecting on an action is not the same thing as participating. I can reflect on a football game or I can play in the football game, but they aren't the same thing.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I never believed they were the actual elements physically. Where does the bible say specifically its physical if this is what you meant? Jesus said to do this in rememberance of Him - we are to remember His blood and body in that He died for our sins. We christians have the Holy Spirit - but I don't call the Holy Spirit an element or force. Its not - its God.

This is generally believed by Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans with caveats, and Lutherans with caveats.

It is believed because Jesus said "this is my body, etc." He did not say it is like his body or a symbol of his body. Therefore, it must be taken literally. Or, so I understand the argument to go.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Believing in the presense isn't itself participating, but it's a necessary part of participating in Jesus death and resurrection and his meal that explains that.



Reflecting on an action is not the same thing as participating. I can reflect on a football game or I can play in the football game, but they aren't the same thing.

Pardon my flippancy, but how is eating a cracker and drinking grape by-product participating even if you believe in the presense. You wanna participate, go get crucified. Eating the wafer even believing Christ is present is in no way participating.

If you were to argue that belief makes it so, then the symbolic can be participating by believing it to be so.

And, tell an Aggie that standing in the stands is not participating in a football game. Look into Texas A&M and the Twelfth Man tradition. In that culture, standing in the stands is participating.

In some such way, obeying God in reflecting can be participating if God so deems it. Just as the Aggies deem standing in the stands to be participating. God being timeless, we could suppose that the crucifixion and resurrection are timeless events ("crucified from the beginning of the world" ~ Paul). If those events are timeless, then reflecting is like standing in the stands.

 

[MichaelFJF]

We get it. You don't think it's important. No amount of explaining is going to change your mind. You're an atheist - why do you care? This whole thread is pointless.

 

[Tinker Grey]

*snip*

Thanks for your reply.

I think I would like to hear a Catholic respond to whether they believe the Eucharist brings salvation or is "merely" a means of conveying grace.