transubstantiation

whats everyones thoughts on transubstantiation

 

If you can get anyone to believe in it, you can get them to believe anything. That is a powerful weapon of control.

 

The early church writings indicate that they did not believe in transubstantiation. The early fathers taught that the substances of bread and wine did not cease to be bread and wine, although they did (in some mysterious or unspecified way) become for us Christ's body and blood.

 

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. (39 Articles)

 

I am prepared to accept that transubstantiation may be the way the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. As far as I am concerned how it happens is a mystery. Transubstantiation could be the way or it may not be. I am happy to consider it a mystery.

 

How is it “repugnant “ exactly?

To me it seems an unnecessary elaboration maybe, but scripture clearly calls the Communion bread the “body” of Christ. I don’t need transubstantiation to be assured in the Real Presence, but I don’t find the doctrine itself repugnant. Seems a bit harsh.

 

The consuming of human flesh and the drinking of blood is repugnant, especially to a devout Jew as Jesus was, and I can't believe that Christ meant this to be a deliberate act of cannibalism literally taking place in the context of 'Remembrance of ' himself and his voluntary sacrificial act. This must be a parabolic metaphor with a spiritual and sacramental significance, not a literal act of cannibalism.
.

 

It also overthrows the nature of a sacrament because the sign (bread and wine) literally becomes the thing signified (body and blood) which means you now only have the thing signified and thus no sign which means no sacrament. I'm sure someone could recommend a book on this topic.

 

My problem with the romish doctrine of transubstantiation is that it addresses the wrong questions, in that it seeks to ask what and how.

The real questions we should be interested in are who and why.

Eastern Christians don't have these issues because they have a different approach to theology, and we could learn some things from them.

 

I like the Eastern Christian approach to this issue and it's similar to how I feel.

Eastern Christians do believe in the Real Presence and that we do consume Christ's Body and Blood. They believe at some point in the Eucharist the bread and wine become Christ's Body and Blood. They make no attempt to explain how this happens other than a mystery wrought by the Holy Spirit. They also feel no need of the complex philosophical arguments about how it is Christ's Body and Blood whilst continuing to appear to be bread and wine to all the human senses.

 

I am pretty Lutheran on this issue and don't hold to transubstantiation.

 

I do not hold to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation where they try to tell us exactly what happens and even at what point in the Eucharistic Prayer.

I do, however, hold to the belief we receive Christ's Body and Blood and not just bread and wine.

 

As Anglicans should. It is a Holy Mystery but we in truth do receive Christ's body and blood be it spiritually or physically.

 

I do believe (I know other Anglicans who do not) that it is both. How? I do not claim to know nor would I presume so to do. I'd also be very sceptical of anyone who claimed they did, as I am with the doctrine pushed by the Roman Catholics.

 

Very well stated PDL, my views are right in line with what you've articulated throughout this thread. I believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, but am happy to leave the exact mechanism as a mystery.

 

This reminds me a bit of echoes of Paul's question, "Do you not realize yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you?" 2 Corinthians 13:5 He also alludes to this in Romans 8:10; Galatians 1:15-16; Galatians 2:20; Galatians 4:19; etc.

 

Which fathers? I wasn't aware of that and would be interested to read it.

 

I don't think Paul was suggesting though that 'Jesus Christ is going through you'.
.

 

John Jewel's Treatise on the Sacraments is well worth reading. Jewel quotes many of the early churchmen on this subject, including quotes from Augustine, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Iranaeus, and Ambrose. I doubt I will ever be capable of presenting the matter half so well as Jewel expressed it in the late 1500s.

A quick quote from Gelasius, Bishop of Rome:
“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine do not cease. And assuredly the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries” (Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium, 14)

This quote from Vigilius:
“The flesh of Christ when it was on earth, was not in Heaven,
and now, because it is in Heaven, doubtless it is not on earth.” (Against Eutychus)

The RCC in particular has been quite adept at bolstering their position on the Eucharist by selectively quoting the early fathers. But when one reads what else those early fathers wrote on the subject, the RC reasoning falls apart. (I tend to single out the RCC because of familiarity; I have never been a part of an Orthodox denomination.)

 

When we receive into ourselves the bread and wine, which are to us the body and blood of Christ, we are spiritually sustained by a wafer and a sip of wine, in the same way as our bodies are symbolically sustained by even a small wafer and a tiny sip of wine. The wafer and the wine pass through us and exit but the body and blood of Christ which is discerned by the believer in faith remains in our spirit confirming Christ's real presence with us. If that were not the case and the wafer and the wine had actually become the flesh and blood of Christ there would be no need whatever for it to be received 'in faith' by the believer and then even the unbelieving would actually consume the flesh and blood of Christ, faith not being in that circumstance in any way involved in the receiving of the sacrament. Indeed as has been previously, correctly pointed out in this thread, the elements could actually NOT BE a sacrament it they actually become the body and blood of Christ, because a sacrament MUST essentially be understood to BE a sacrament, through the faith of those receiving it, as being truly 'representative' of the spiritual, invisible and intangible grace that it symbolises.