Posted on 07/09/2015 9:33:36 AM PDT by RnMomof7
The doctrine of Transubstantiation is the belief that the elements of the Lord’s table (bread and wine) supernaturally transform into the body and blood of Christ during the Mass. This is uniquely held by Roman Catholics but some form of a “Real Presence” view is held by Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and some Anglicans. The Calvinist/Reformed tradition believes in a real spiritual presence but not one of substance. Most of the remaining Protestant traditions (myself included) don’t believe in any real presence, either spiritual or physical, but believe that the Eucharist is a memorial and a proclamation of Christ’s work on the cross (this is often called Zwinglianism). The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined Transubstantiation this way:
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” (Session XIII, chapter IV)
As well, there is an abiding curse (anathema) placed on all Christians who deny this doctrine:
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ,[42] but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema. (Session XII, Canon I)
It is very important to note that Roman Catholics not only believe that taking the Eucharist in the right manner is essential for salvation, but that belief in the doctrine is just as essential.
Here are the five primary reasons why I reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation:
1. It takes Christ too literally
There does not seem to be any reason to take Christ literally when he institutes the Eucharist with the words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Matt. 26:26-28, et al). Christ often used metaphor in order to communicate a point. For example, he says “I am the door,” “I am the vine,” “You are the salt of the earth,” and “You are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14) but people know that we don’t take such statement literally. After all, who believes that Christ is literally a door swinging on a hinge?
2. It does not take Christ literally enough
Let’s say for the sake of the argument that in this instance Christ did mean to be taken literally. What would this mean? Well, it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the night before Christ died on the cross, when he said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” that it actually was his body and blood that night before he died. If this were the case, and Christ really meant to be taken literally, we have Christ, before the atonement was actually made, offering the atonement to his disciples. I think this alone gives strong support to a denial of any substantial real presence.
3. It does not take Christ literally enough (2)
In each of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) we have the institution of the Eucharist. When the wine is presented, Christ’s wording is a bit different. Here is how it goes in Luke’s Gospel: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luk 22:20). Here, if we were really to take Christ literally, the “cup” is the new covenant. It is not the wine, it is the cup that is holy. However, of course, even Roman Catholics would agree that the cup is symbolic of the wine. But why one and not the other? Why can’t the wine be symbolic of his death if the cup can be symbolic of the wine? As well, is the cup actually the “new covenant”? That is what he says. “This cup . . . is the new covenant.” Is the cup the actual new covenant, or only symbolic of it? See the issues?
4. The Gospel of John fails to mention the Eucharist
Another significant problem I have with the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist and its abiding anathemas is that the one Gospel which claims to be written so that people may have eternal life, John (John 20:31), does not even include the institution of the Eucharist. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell the story of Christ giving the first Lord’s table, but John decides to leave it out. Why? This issue is made more significant in that John includes more of the “Upper Room” narrative than any of the other Gospels. Nearly one-third of the entire book of John walks us through what Christ did and said that night with his disciples. Yet no breaking of the bread or giving of the wine is included. This is a pretty significant oversight if John meant to give people the message that would lead to eternal life (John 20:31). From the Roman Catholic perspective, his message must be seen as insufficient to lead to eternal life since practice and belief in the Mass are essential for eternal life and he leaves these completely out of the Upper Room narrative.
(Some believe that John does mention the importance of belief in Transubstantiation in John 6. The whole, “Why did he let them walk away?” argument. But I think this argument is weak. I talk about that here. Nevertheless, it still does not answer why John left out the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It could be that by A.D. 90, John saw an abuse of the Lord’s table already rising. He may have sought to curb this abuse by leaving the Eucharist completely out of his Gospel. But this, I readily admit, is speculative.)
5. Problems with the Hypostatic Union and the Council of Chalcedon
This one is going to be a bit difficult to explain, but let me give it a shot. Orthodox Christianity (not Eastern Orthodox) holds to the “Hypostatic Union” of Christ. This means that we believe that Christ is fully God and fully man. This was most acutely defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Important for our conversation is that Christ had to be fully man to fully redeem us. Christ could not be a mixture of God and man, or he could only represent other mixtures of God and man. He is/was one person with two complete natures. These nature do not intermingle (they are “without confusion”). In other words, his human nature does not infect or corrupt his divine nature. And his divine nature does not infect or corrupt his human nature. This is called the communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties or attributes). The attributes of one nature cannot communicate (transfer/share) with another nature. Christ’s humanity did not become divinitized. It remained complete and perfect humanity (with all its limitations). The natures can communicate with the Person, but not with each other. Therefore, the attribute of omnipresence (present everywhere) cannot communicate to his humanity to make his humanity omnipresent. If it did, we lose our representative High Priest, since we don’t have this attribute communicated to our nature. Christ must always remain as we are in order to be the Priest and Pioneer of our faith. What does all of this mean? Christ’s body cannot be at more than one place at a time, much less at millions of places across the world every Sunday during Mass. In this sense, I believe that any real physical presence view denies the definition of Chalcedon and the principles therein.
There are many more objections that I could bring including Paul’s lack of mentioning it to the Romans (the most comprehensive presentation of the Gospel in the Bible), some issues of anatomy, issues of idolatry, and just some very practical things concerning Holy Orders, church history, and . . . ahem . . . excrement. But I think these five are significant enough to justify a denial of Transubstantiation. While I respect Roman Catholicism a great deal, I must admit how hard it is for me to believe that a doctrine that is so difficult to defend biblically is held to such a degree that abiding anathemas are pronounced on those who disagree.
If making false statements about what we teach — whether we are right to do so or not — is the way to live in Christ, then we do have a problem.
Well, good. In that case you will understand why I don’t say that the doctrine says the elements become the “actual” body and blood.
Matthew 26: 26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”30 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. [Young's Literal Translation]
Mark 14:22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”
23 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24 “This is my blood of thec covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
26 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.Luke 22:14 And when the hour come, he reclined (at meat), and the twelve apostles with him, 15 and he said unto them, ‘With desire I did desire to eat this passover with you before my suffering, 16 for I say to you, that no more may I eat of it till it may be fulfilled in the reign of God.’ 17 And having taken a cup, having given thanks, he said, ‘Take this and divide to yourselves, 18 for I say to you that I may not drink of the produce of the vine till the reign of God may come.’ 19 And having taken bread, having given thanks, he brake and gave to them, saying, ‘This is my body, that for you is being given, this do ye — to remembrance of me.’ 20 In like manner, also, the cup after the supping, saying, ‘This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood, that for you is being poured forth.
Paul offers to the Corinthians what he was instructed regarding this same Passover Seder REMEMBRANCE:,P.
1 Cor 11:23 For I — I received from the Lord that which also I did deliver to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, 24 and having given thanks, he brake, and said, ‘Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, that for you is being broken; this do ye — to the remembrance of me.’ 25 In like manner also the cup after the supping, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye may drink [it] — to the remembrance of me;’ 26 for as often as ye may eat this bread, and this cup may drink, the death of the Lord ye do shew forth — till he may come;
That may be a little hard to follow, so here is the World English version:
23For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread. 24When he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "Take, eat. This is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in memory of me." 25In the same way he also took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in memory of me." 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Jesus came to bring something better than a new set of symbols.
What were they doing when he said “this”?
Not literal enough for the ‘selective literalism’ crowd ...
Aquinas is the authority on what the doctrine MEANS, not on whether it is true.
So, if somebody says that we hold that someone passes into the sewers, that someone cannot be the risen Lord, because we don't teach that about him.
Now, we may be quite as evil and deluded as you say. But we are not yet quite so lost as to think that we both officially teach a thing and teach its contrary.
So, whatever the truth concerning the bread and wine IS, the truth about our teaching — about what we teach, rightly or wrongly, is that the Real Presence only coincides with bread, and when the bread becomes something other than bread, the Real or substantial presence is not attached to that something.
So, I am not addressing the disagreement on the truth or falsehood of the dogma. I am saying that the dogma was misrepresented. If misrepresentation is not something we would want to try to avoid, that seems a funny way to walk in the way of Truth.
I don't feel confident about using a word that pertains to “act.” I'd need to see the theology worked out. I am fine with “real” and “really.” “True” and “truly” work for me I strongly deprecate “literally,” and disagree with “physically.”
You seem to use the notion of “word games” disparagingly. But vocabulary, even jargon, is an essential part of the “logos” of Theology. If people are going to falsely claim that we hold that the body of Christ goes into the sewers, then that falsehood needs to be addressed, I think. And, I suspect that the misunderstanding arises from a misunderstanding about words, words like “real” and “substantial.”
Aquinas is KIND of an authority for Catholics on the Truth of our theology.
But he is almost THE authority for the content of our doctrine. Even if, arguendo, we stipulate that the dogma is false, whenwe look into what exactly is falso about it, we have to go to Aquinas to find what the particular false teaching is.
If I were to say that automobiles run on hummus, and you were to say that I say they run on beanspouts, both statements are wrong, but you are also wrong to say I was saying my car ran on beansprouts.
All Im doing here, other than disagreeing with the post, is saying that I never said my car runs on sprouts. I said it runs on hummus. No one who keeps on arguing about sprouts is going to help me with my hummus problem.
Got it. Thanks.
Gotta leave you now.
And?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.