Transubstantiation…

[Salty]

From another thread:

Good point. It's like the argument against the belief of the early Christians who believed Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Some argued that would make them cannibals. But if what He offers is just symbolic, then logically if you use the cannibal accusation, you would have to affirm Jesus instituted symbolic cannibalism. Don't want to derail this thread, but you made a good point.

So how would you explain to someone that the bread and wine of the Lords Supper do NOT magically turn into the actually blood and body of Jesus Christ.

From Wiki: Transubstantiation - Wikipedia

 

[JonC]

I would explain that "take and eat" does not mean "eat my flesh", and "take and drink" does not mean "drink my blood" but rather that we will share in His death. What we do is eat and drink in recollection of Him and His sacrifice of redemption. It is symbolic not only of His death but of our participation in His death and Resurrection.

It is not symbolic cannabalosm, but symbolic of the New Covenant (see Matthew 26:28). I would add that this is not merely symbolic, as it it is our affirmation, our testimony, as a covenant act, much like baptism. (It is a serious matter).

 

[canadyjd]

In John 6:49-67, Jesus makes it clear He is speaking of “spiritual” (not literal) things when He tells them to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul explains the supper is a memorial that proclaims the death of Christ until He returns.

It was never intended to be taken as literally eating flesh and blood.

peace to you

 

[Campion]

Transubstantiation is merely the use of metaphysics to rationally explain the mystery of the Eucharist. Much like the explanation of gravity did not create gravity, it merely explained what we already experienced.

Like the example of St. Paul, arguably the first Christian philosopher, transubstantiation is an attempt to explain, metaphysically, the great mystery which Christians partake in at the holy altar whereby man has true communion with the Word made flesh. (cf. 1 Cor 10:16)

 

[JonC]

Transubstantiation is merely the use of metaphysics to rationally explain the mystery of the Eucharist. Much like the explanation of gravity did not create gravity, it merely explained what we already experienced.

Like the example of St. Paul, arguably the first Christian philosopher, transubstantiation is an attempt to explain, metaphysically, the great mystery which Christians partake in at the holy altar whereby man has true communion with the Word made flesh. (cf. 1 Cor 10:16)

It looks as if the difference is those like @canadyjd view Scripture as clear while you do not (you see it as mystery). While not an argument to prove either view, we probably should at least acknowledge that to the Apostolic Church this was not a mystery at all but a meal.

I have read Catholic theologians supporting their position by arguing God made the Roman pagan rite holy. I am not sure this is appropriate.

 

[canadyjd]

Transubstantiation is merely the use of metaphysics to rationally explain the mystery of the Eucharist….

Luckily for us, we have scripture, not metaphysics, to explain the Lord’s Supper. Jesus said He was speaking of spiritual things, not fleshy things, when He spoke of partaking of His flesh and blood. Paul says the supper is a memorial to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes again.

edit to add: JonC has already made my point. Thanks JonC.

peace to you

 

[Revmitchell]

From another thread:



So how would you explain to someone that the bread and wine of the Lords Supper do NOT magically turn into the actually blood and body of Jesus Christ.

From Wiki: Transubstantiation - Wikipedia

You point them to the truth of scripture. Romans 6. However, since the Catholic Church holds that their edicts are equal to the Living and Powerful word of God then there is no common ground from which to have that discussion in most cases. Since the foundation of that believe comes from a source other than scripture one must deconstruct the foundation first before a conversation about this can be had.

 

[JesusFan]

From another thread:



So how would you explain to someone that the bread and wine of the Lords Supper do NOT magically turn into the actually blood and body of Jesus Christ.

From Wiki: Transubstantiation - Wikipedia

Would address actually Sacramentalism salvation heresy

 

[Campion]

It looks as if the difference is those like @canadyjd view Scripture as clear while you do not (you see it as mystery). While not an argument to prove either view, we probably should at least acknowledge that to the Apostolic Church this was not a mystery at all but a meal.

I have read Catholic theologians supporting their position by arguing God made the Roman pagan rite holy. I am not sure this is appropriate.

By mystery we do not mean secret. Rather, in Christianity, mystery refers to participation in divine grace. Everything which is and of the Church's sacraments are referred to as mystery. Their purpose is to sanctify.

Additionally, 1 Cor 11:22 dispels the concept that the Eucharist is simply a meal. The Apostles weren't serving steak and potatoes with a side of Eucharist. St. Paul tells the faithful at Corinth that they have homes in which to have their meals and drinks in.

 

[Campion]

Luckily for us, we have scripture, not metaphysics, to explain the Lord’s Supper. Jesus said He was speaking of spiritual things, not fleshy things, when He spoke of partaking of His flesh and blood. Paul says the supper is a memorial to proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes again.

edit to add: JonC has already made my point. Thanks JonC.

peace to you

We do not dismiss "fleshy things" in Christianity because God became man IN THE FLESH. It was by this flesh which He redeemed the world. I find it odd that you would think his flesh could somehow be separated from Him.

The Son of God entered into His creation in the city named the House of Bread (Bethlehem), was laid in a feeding troth (manger) and said His very flesh was the true bread from heaven...

"I am the bread of life...and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." - Jesus Christ

It doesn't get any clearer than that.


As for metaphysics, St. Paul used philosophy extensively throughout the New Testament. The Apostle even quotes several pagan philosophers in his epistles to help explain Christian truths.

 

[JonC]

By mystery we do not mean secret. Rather, in Christianity, mystery refers to participation in divine grace. Everything which is and of the Church's sacraments are referred to as mystery. Their purpose is to sanctify.

Additionally, 1 Cor 11:22 dispels the concept that the Eucharist is simply a meal. The Apostles weren't serving steak and potatoes with a side of Eucharist. St. Paul tells the faithful at Corinth that they have homes in which to have their meals and drinks in.

First, I am not saying it was simply a meal. I agree with you here. I am also not saying it was the Apostles who were serving it (there is no indication it was). But at the same time the meal was (as indicated by 1 Cor 12) a common meal.

Second, thank you for your clarification concerning "mystery". It is participation in the New Covenant (not, however, to sanctify as one must have already examined himself, but to testify).

 

[canadyjd]

We do not dismiss "fleshy things" in Christianity because God became man IN THE FLESH. It was by this flesh which He redeemed the world. I find it odd that you would think his flesh could somehow be separated from Him.

The Son of God entered into His creation in the city named the House of Bread (Bethlehem), was laid in a feeding troth (manger) and said His very flesh was the true bread from heaven...

"I am the bread of life...and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." - Jesus Christ

It doesn't get any clearer than that.


As for metaphysics, St. Paul used philosophy extensively throughout the New Testament. The Apostle even quotes several pagan philosophers in his epistles to help explain Christian truths.

Complete deflection from the truth that Jesus said He was speaking “spiritual words” when He spoke of eaten His flesh and drinking His blood. He added “the flesh profits nothing”

See John 6:49-67 for the truth on this issue and just believe what Jesus says.

peace to you

 

[Walter]

Sorry but, the Holy Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Jesus himself...the very bread of life. Jesus lost many followers upon this proclaimation in John 6. Jesus didn't clarify with I am speaking metaphorically. No! He doubled down! The loyal follows stayed...all except Judas who couldn't belive Jesus's teaching.
How can any protestant still deny Holy Eucharist (Communion) is mearly a symbol within the Catholic Church?

As to the 'the flesh profits nothing', the following came from a hand out I received in RCIA. I'm not sure what the source is other than it was given in class, but I think it is worthy of consideration:
'Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up. Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means Knowledge puffs up? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, but charity edifies. [1 Corinthians 8:1] Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, the flesh profits nothing, only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much. For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles’ flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord’s flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

If enemies of Christ had overwhelmed Him against His will, killing Him and cutting His Body to pieces, would that have saved anyone? No. The Passion works only because Christ voluntarily lays down His Life (John 10:11). That is, for the Passion (and the Eucharist) to work, Jesus must be both the High Priest (Heb. 4:14) and the Sacrifice (1 Cor. 5:7). Or put another way, the Spirit and Flesh must be operating in union.'

 

[canadyjd]

Sorry but…
in John 6. Jesus didn't clarify with I am speaking metaphorically. No!…..'

Jesus said He was speaking “spiritual words”. He then “doubled down” by explaining the Spirit is life, but the flesh profits nothing.

Making a comparison to 1 Corinthians teaching of adding charity to knowledge and adding flesh to spirit is simply a misapplication of that passage.

That is not what Jesus said. Just believe what He said. His words concerning eating His flesh and drinking His blood were never intended to be taken literally. They are “spiritual” words and they are life. The flesh profits nothing concerning the Lord’s supper.

peace to you

 

[Campion]

Complete deflection from the truth that Jesus said He was speaking “spiritual words” when He spoke of eaten His flesh and drinking His blood. He added “the flesh profits nothing”

See John 6:49-67 for the truth on this issue and just believe what Jesus says.

peace to you

The "flesh profits nothing" refers to those rejecting Jesus' teaching because they were using their human reasoning, their senses, instead of faith. It's like people today saying what Jesus did was institute a symbol. That is the flesh speaking.

Here's an early Doctor of the Church explaining:

"His meaning is, You must hear spiritually what relates to Me, for he who hears carnally is not profited, nor gathers any advantage. It was carnal to question how He came down from heaven, to deem that He was the son of Joseph, to ask, How can he give us His flesh to eat?All this was carnal, when they ought to have understood the matter in a mystical and spiritual sense. But, says some one, how could they understand what the 'eating flesh' might mean? Then it was their duty to wait for the proper time and enquire, and not to abandon Him.

That is, they are divine and spiritual, have nothing carnal about them, are not subject to the laws of physical consequence, but are free from any such necessity, are even set above the laws appointed for this world, and have also another and a different meaning. Now as in this passage He said spirit, instead of spiritual, so when He speaks of flesh, He meant not carnal things, but carnally hearing, and alluding at the same time to them, because they ever desired carnal things when they ought to have desired spiritual. For if a man receives them carnally, he profits nothing. What then, is not His flesh, flesh? Most certainly. How then says He, that the flesh profits nothing? He speaks not of His own flesh, (God forbid!) but of those who received His words in a carnal manner. But what is understanding carnally? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally. But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is seeing spiritually. He that eats not His flesh, and drinks not His blood, has no life in him. How then does the flesh profit nothing, if without it we cannot live? Do you see that the words, the flesh profits nothing, are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?"- St. John Chysostom, Homily 47 on the Gospel of John

 

[canadyjd]

The "flesh profits nothing" refers to those rejecting Jesus' teaching because they were using their human reasoning, their senses, instead of faith. It's like people today saying what Jesus did was institute a symbol. That is the flesh speaking.

Here's an early Doctor of the Church explaining:

"His meaning is, You must hear spiritually what relates to Me, for he who hears carnally is not profited, nor gathers any advantage. It was carnal to question how He came down from heaven, to deem that He was the son of Joseph, to ask, How can he give us His flesh to eat?All this was carnal, when they ought to have understood the matter in a mystical and spiritual sense. But, says some one, how could they understand what the 'eating flesh' might mean? Then it was their duty to wait for the proper time and enquire, and not to abandon Him.

That is, they are divine and spiritual, have nothing carnal about them, are not subject to the laws of physical consequence, but are free from any such necessity, are even set above the laws appointed for this world, and have also another and a different meaning. Now as in this passage He said spirit, instead of spiritual, so when He speaks of flesh, He meant not carnal things, but carnally hearing, and alluding at the same time to them, because they ever desired carnal things when they ought to have desired spiritual. For if a man receives them carnally, he profits nothing. What then, is not His flesh, flesh? Most certainly. How then says He, that the flesh profits nothing? He speaks not of His own flesh, (God forbid!) but of those who received His words in a carnal manner. But what is understanding carnally? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally. But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is seeing spiritually. He that eats not His flesh, and drinks not His blood, has no life in him. How then does the flesh profit nothing, if without it we cannot live? Do you see that the words, the flesh profits nothing, are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?"- St. John Chysostom, Homily 47 on the Gospel of John

The “flesh profits nothing” was spoken by Jesus in the context of Him explaining to His disciples that His command to eat His flesh and drink His blood were “spiritual words” and are life.

Any explanation of “the flesh profits nothing” must be addressed in the context in which it was spoken or that explanation is wrong.

peace to you

 

[Campion]

Complete deflection from the truth that Jesus said He was speaking “spiritual words” when He spoke of eaten His flesh and drinking His blood. He added “the flesh profits nothing”

See John 6:49-67 for the truth on this issue and just believe what Jesus says.

peace to you

Save for the fact that Jesus doubles down and says, "TRULY, TRULY I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." - John 6:53-56

See my post above for the meaning of the flesh profits nothing. Your flesh tells you what Jesus said cannot be true. You must have FAITH.

I always find it odd that some people claim to believe that God took the form of a dove, took the form of a cloud, and was present in a box making its way across the wilderness, and even entered into His creation as a helpless baby, but cannot bring themselves to believe God is present amongst His people in the Eucharist. It's quite baffling and illogical.

 

[JonC]

Sorry but, the Holy Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Jesus himself...the very bread of life. Jesus lost many followers upon this proclaimation in John 6. Jesus didn't clarify with I am speaking metaphorically. No! He doubled down! The loyal follows stayed...all except Judas who couldn't belive Jesus's teaching.
How can any protestant still deny Holy Eucharist (Communion) is mearly a symbol within the Catholic Church?

As to the 'the flesh profits nothing', the following came from a hand out I received in RCIA. I'm not sure what the source is other than it was given in class, but I think it is worthy of consideration:
'Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up. Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means Knowledge puffs up? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, but charity edifies. [1 Corinthians 8:1] Therefore add to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, the flesh profits nothing, only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profits very much. For if the flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us. If through the flesh Christ has greatly profited us, does the flesh profit nothing? But it is by the flesh that the Spirit has done somewhat for our salvation. Flesh was a vessel; consider what it held, not what it was. The apostles were sent forth; did their flesh profit us nothing? If the apostles’ flesh profited us, could it be that the Lord’s flesh should have profited us nothing? For how should the sound of the Word come to us except by the voice of the flesh? Whence should writing come to us? All these are operations of the flesh, but only when the spirit moves it, as if it were its organ. Therefore it is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

If enemies of Christ had overwhelmed Him against His will, killing Him and cutting His Body to pieces, would that have saved anyone? No. The Passion works only because Christ voluntarily lays down His Life (John 10:11). That is, for the Passion (and the Eucharist) to work, Jesus must be both the High Priest (Heb. 4:14) and the Sacrifice (1 Cor. 5:7). Or put another way, the Spirit and Flesh must be operating in union.'

Yes, they did not understand that He was speaking spiritually (which he clarified in the same chapter) but thought He was speaking of literal flesh and blood.

 

[Campion]

The “flesh profits nothing” was spoken by Jesus in the context of Him explaining to His disciples that His command to eat His flesh and drink His blood were “spiritual words” and are life.

Any explanation of “the flesh profits nothing” must be addressed in the context in which it was spoken or that explanation is wrong.

peace to you

Exactly. It was a response to the unbelievers, who like you, ask "This is intolerable language. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60) This is thinking with the flesh, that is, merely human reasoning / their senses. It requires not human flesh to understand, but rather faith.

Again, it's like people today saying what Jesus did to fulfill this bread of life discourse was nothing more than institute a symbol. That is the flesh speaking and it most certainly profits nothing.

 

[Campion]

Yes, they did not understand that He was speaking spiritually (which he clarified in the same chapter) but thought He was speaking of literal flesh and blood.

Jesus doubles down and affirms he is speaking literally. "Truly, truly..."