Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Transubstantiation - Concluding Thoughts

These are the concluding thoughts from a series of posts on the topic of transubstantiation. The previous posts are as follows:

Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four


Most Catholics I have spoken to on the matter of transubstantiation contend that the view presented here completely downplays the Lord's Supper. I would like to finish out this series of posts simply by saying that this view in no way detracts, denigrates, or condescends the Lord’s Supper. Nor would I say that Communion is merely a symbol. I think most people would agree that when Jesus says “Do this in remembrance of Me” He is not saying “I want you to intellectually recall all the facts you know about Me in your brain.” Rather, to partake of the Lord’s Supper is to remember His death and all that His death accomplished for us; this should stir and strengthen our faith and draw us into deeper communion with Jesus. Consider once more the words of J.C. Ryle on the subject:
    Now, is it reasonable to suppose that our Lord would appoint an ordinance for so simple a purpose as "remembering His death?" It most certainly is. Of all the facts in His earthly ministry none are equal in importance to that of His death. It was the great settlement for man's sin, which had been appointed in God's promise from the foundation of the world. It was the great redemption of almighty power, to which every sacrifice of animals, from the fall of man, continually pointed. It was the grand end and purpose for which the Messiah came into the world. It was the cornerstone and foundation of all man's hopes of pardon and peace with God. In short, Christ would have lived, and taught, and preached, and prophesied, and performed miracles in vain, if He had not "crowned it all by dying for our sins as our Substitute on the Cross!" His death was our life. His death was the payment of our debt to God. Without His death we would have been the most miserable of all creatures. No wonder that an ordinance was specially appointed to remind us of our Savior's death. It is the one thing which poor, weak, sinful man needs to be continually reminded. (J.C. Ryle, The Lord’s Supper)
In the ordinance of Communion, we have been given the opportunity to experience a profound and vital spiritual truth, and we are to be nourished and satisfied by faith in all that God has given us in Christ.

The Lord’s Supper proclaims Jesus – and that is no small thing at all.

24 comments:

epalmer said...

Trains have substations?

Matthew Wireman said...

Great series of posts Jason! I am thankful that you tackled such a foreboding topic. It is encouraging to see people use their blogs for more than empty words of stream-of-consciousness.

vandorsten said...

Thanks brother. An encouraging word is always welcome... and, as always, it seems, yours are well-timed.

Anonymous said...

Good article, but Christ did mean for us to actually consume his body and blood which is what 'Catholics' do at Mass. Christ did mean his words literally. That's why transubstantiation is so important to 'Catholics' and why our communion is not appropriate for non-believers in transubstantiation.

This is also why the arguements last fall over John Kerry taking communion occured. If it were just a wafer and some grape juice in some sort of relegious play, there wuld have been no arguement.

For Catholics, this is simple. We were told by Christ to do it and that practice has been passed down to us over 2,000 years. For over 1,500 years, it was likewise faithfully observed by the forefathers of Baptists, Pentacostalists, Jehovah Witnesses, et al.

According to Protestants, everything in the Bible is literal, except Christ's commands to eat his body and flesh. Creation is literal, the great flood is literal, Lazarus rising from the dead is literal, but the Eucharist is allegedly not literal -- strange.

vandorsten said...

See the second post in this series regarding the idea of continually sacrificing Christ through "actually consuming His body and blood."

See the third post in this series regarding literal and symbolic language.

Matthew Wireman said...

Karate Explosion - I appreciate your sense of humor to a certain degree. However, when you degrade the Catholic position I think you are hurting more than helping in the dialogue. When we make comments on these things it is easy to throw words out there when you don't see someone face to face. Remember that these are real folks (as I am sure you know).

David - A few points of exegesis. I fail to see how you connect Jesus' continual intercession with the once-for-all-sacrifice with the Eucharist. I understand that you believe that the Mass is not re-sacrificing, but this fails in light of logic. The OT pirest offers the sacrifice and atones for the sins each year. Jesus sat down once the sacrifice was finished once. If a Catholic priest "turns" the bread into the body, then how is it possible for the flesh to be real when Christ now has a resurrected body? The point of Hebrews 7 is that we have a perfect intercessor who is not like the OT priests. He does not offer again and again. Once. Though you claim the Eucharist is not a re-sacrifice, in all simplicity it is calling the bread Christ's flesh that is truly present with him as he sits at the right hand of God. Make sense?

Secondly, following your literal interpretation of John 6.48-49 Jesus flesh would have to be present in the Wilderness in Israel BEFORE the Incarnation. I still don't think you dealt with Jason's argument from v. 63 where Jesus is expositing all the words from before (including eating his flesh).

Thirdly, I know that Aquinas sought to distinguish between actual and perceived. However, how is Jesus able to say at the Last Supper "This is my body" which he is holding in his hands. We can argue all day that "is" means "is", but logic will not let us take it literally. It is not a lack of faith. Rather, it is hermeneutical principles that govern the interpretation (namely, the rule of faith).

Fourthly, How is Jesus present in heaven interceding for us and present in the multiple Eucharists that are being eaten by people? One of the beauties of the Incarnation is that Infinite God became finite man. In his physical body he is only able to be in certain places. So it is now. He sits at the right hand of the Almighty...

Lastly, I know that this is fed by a presupposition Catholics have of the ongoing nature of forgiveness and sacrifice and sacraments. However, I hope biblically we can let the Bible guide our theology. Here is a short article by Dr. Joe Mizzi that may help the discussion: here.

Matthew Wireman said...

Thanks for the response. That helps. I was mostly talking about numbers 2 and 4 on your list. That's what I meant by the "degrade" part of my comment. This is a senstitive topic and we need to be careful when we talk about someone's position. Thank you for your kindness in your response to me...no hard feelings at all.

Matthew Wireman said...

Thank you for posting the quotes from those who helped form the early church. I sympathize with your desire to see how these godly men fought for various doctrines, but I don't think it is an open-shut case because the early church seemed to advocate your position (as I know you don't think it's open-shut).

First, the early church did get things wrong. Thus you had schisms and heterodoxy sprouting up as the Church sought to define its doctrine. I do not believe that Justin Martyr, nor Athanasius, nor Basil, nor Ignatius got it right. Yes, they helped define at pivotal points in the life of the Church, but they were not inerrant.

Secondly, the doctrine of transubstantiation did not become official until the 13th century. The RCC may talk about the present doctrine being in seed form all day, but the fact is that this was not a doctrine officially taught until that time. You make the statement that the Church was more concerned about the Trinity and the Canon than it seems they were about transubstantiation. This is due to the heresies that were popping up trying to deny the deity of Christ, not because transubstantiation was not an important doctrine.

Put another way: The men you quote are pillars on which we stand. However, we cannot look to our foundations from our presuppositions of what we believe to be doctrinally pure. That is, simply because you believe transubstantiation is true and you see it evidenced in the fathers of the church does not mean they taught this. There is way too much ambiguity as to this.

Doubt the ambiguity? I am perfectly okay with (as a Protestant) saying that the bread and the cup are the body and blood of Christ. Read this comment when I am dead for ten generations and people will think that I believe in transubstantiation.

Not so. I believe in a spiritual reality that says that by faith I am partaking of the body and blood of Christ. Do I eat the flesh? No. Metaphorically this may ride. Parabolically this may hold. But not actually. Again, biblically there is no warrant to hold to transubstantiation when read in context.

vandorsten said...

Dave,

First off, it's great to hear from you, old friend! Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. Yours is one of the few well-articulated Catholic responses I've read. Thanks for taking the time to respond and for approaching the topic without taking offense.

I would like to clarify a couple points concerning Real Presence. Though you have stated well your position, and perhaps clarified some misconceptions, I still fail to see sufficient Scriptural evidence to support literal transubstantiation. I am not saying Christ is not at all present in the Eucharist. I believe that Scripture supports His spiritual presence – but not His physical presence. In asserting the spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper, understand that by "spiritual" I do not mean ethereal or symbolic. To say the spiritual presence of Christ is present is not to be downplayed, as the Catholic church seems to do, in my opinion – but the spiritual is no less literal or real than the physical. This seems to be a point many believers fail to realize, much less integrate into their lives. Remember, the Spirit gives life while the flesh “is of no avail” (John 6:63). I think Donald MacLeod put it quite well:

He is there [in the Eucharist] by His Holy Spirit. He is there not to be seen and touched and handled, but to be received by faith. This is no mere metaphorical presence. It is a genuine presence, `real' not in the sense of the body being present, but in the sense of Christ being personally present. He is present at the Lord's Table as He is present wherever two or three gather in His name (Matthew 18:20). He is present as He is present in the prayer meeting. He is present as He is present in the preaching of the Word. He is present as He was present to the saints of the Old Testament. There is no peculiar sacramental presence. We cannot teach that tonight we have the prayer meeting presence and tomorrow we have the preaching presence and next month we have the sacramental presence, as if somehow these were gradations on some kind of scale. The person, Christ, is present wherever His people gather, wherever His Word is preached, wherever His name is invoked in prayer. He is present in our hearts, present with His grace, present with His help in time of need, and present in His benefits. (The Lord’s Supper)

You say: What is most striking to me about the doctrine of the Eucharist is the complete unanimity among Christians since the time of Christ that it truly is the body and blood of Christ. What I find very interesting is that, in the early church … never was there a dispute that took place concerning the nature of the Eucharist. Every individual who considered themselves Christian, from the time of Christ onward … believed it to truly be the body and blood of Christ.

Respectfully, I consider that a gross overstatement and would question the accuracy of this particular point. Even in the early church, there was debate and discussion over this issue. And although I appreciate you sharing some thoughts from the church fathers regarding this subject, I don’t believe that you have presented an accurate range of teachings or comments. There was hardly a “unanimous consent” regarding the Eucharist. Please consider the following:

>> The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, as it is sometimes called, is included in the collection of works known as the Apostolic Fathers, and is one of the oldest documents from the immediate post-apostolic age that we possess. It is an early manual of Church discipline dated from between the late first century and 140 A.D., and it simply refers to the Lord’s Supper as spiritual food and drink. There is no indication that the elements are transformed in any way. (William Webster, The Eucharist)
>> Tertullian (155-250) explicitly maintained that the bread and wine in the Eucharist were symbols or figures which represent the body and blood of Christ and specifically stated that these were not the literal body and blood of the Lord. Tertullian asserted that that Jesus was speaking figuratively when He said “This is My body” and that he consecrated the wine ‘in memory of his blood’ (On the Resurrection of the Flesh).
>> Clement of Alexandria (150-216) also called the bread and wine symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and taught that the partakers received not the physical but the spiritual life of Christ (The Instructor)
>> Eusebius (263-340) identified the elements as being symbolical or representative of spiritual realities. He specifically states that the bread and wine are symbols of the Lord’s body and blood and that Christ’s words in John 6 are to be understood spiritually and figuratively as opposed to a physical and literal sense. (On the Theology of the Church)
>> Augustine (354-430) contended that the Eucharist was a sign which represents and symbolizes a spiritual reality. He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ and the sacramental presence, maintaining that Christ’s physical body could not literally be present in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Though he maintained that Christ is spiritually with His people, Augustine maintained that Christ is physically at the right hand of God in heaven, and will be there until He comes again. Augustine viewed the Eucharist in spiritual terms and he interpreted the true meaning of eating and drinking as being faith: ‘To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.’ (Homilies on the Gospel of John)

The views of the early Church on the meaning of the Eucharist and its relationship to the person of Christ are, in actuality, very similar to those found today in relation to different Protestant and RCC views.

I think, however, that you and I must both take something into account in quoting the church fathers, as Matt alluded to above. Interpreting the meaning of the Eucharist through the writings of the fathers must be done with great caution. I think it is all too easy to filter their comments and teachings through preconceived theology of the Eucharist. Great men though they may have been, they are not infallible. And with all due respect to them – for they are no doubt greater theologians than I will ever be – if they held the stance of literal, physical transubstantiation, they were in error.

Dave, I do want you to know that it’s great to hear from you and I’m glad we can have this discussion. May the Lord use this to sharpen us and deepen our love for Him. Grace and peace, brother.

Matthew Wireman said...

Thanks for the response, Dave. I just don't think you have dealt with our arguments. I am not trying to go against the sitness of church history like you say. I am merely saying that to read your presuppositions into the Church Fathers is not an argument to support your position. Jason raised a very good point from the Didache and Terutllian. If this was a teaching that was unanimous, why does it not seem to be the case with these men? I suggest that there was no unanimity/clear teaching of transubstantiation in the early church as you suppose.

Regarding the heresies I brought up, I was merely saying that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not developed because it was not of utmost importance - the Trintity and Canon were - not because of unanimity.

Matthew Wireman said...

Note: This will probably be my last comment. I have a blog to work on and reading that I am too far behind in to justify putting off any more. This conversation has been very encouraging for me and helpful. Thank you all for your time.

Damienc ~

Thanks for your comments. I think it would be beneficial for you to read the Webster articles Jason cited and the previous posts.

It seems we are totally missing each other in our exegesis. I simply don't think you are reading the text right. Period.

Again, the Church Fathers. Read my response to David above. The last paragraph did not make sense to me. You used "sign" in two different ways.

vandorsten said...

Damienc,

Thanks for joining the discussion and for sharing your thoughts.

Please see the second post in this series regarding sacrifice. Scripture teaches that Christ’s body and His sacrifice were offered once. On this point, you as an individual would seem to agree, yet Catholic doctrine does seem to teach that his body and sacrifice are offered over and over again in transubstantiation and the repetition of each mass.

I think it may be helpful to look a piece of the history within the Catholic church to get a better understanding of this matter. Now, I realize that I am an outsider looking in, so I will try my best to refrain from making great leaps to support my perspective apart from the historical facts. Specifically, I’d like to look at the Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent was a Catholic council held from 1545-1563 in an attempt to stop the progress of the Protestant Reformation. The Vatican II Council of the mid-1960s referred to Trent dozens of times, quoted and reaffirmed Trent's proclamations as authority. The New Catholic Catechism cites Trent no less than 99 times. At the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII stated, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent." Every cardinal, bishop and priest who participated in the Vatican II Council signed a document affirming Trent. The Council of Trent has never been annulled. (David W. Cloud, Declarations of the Council of Trent)

Now, there are modern Catholic writers who say the RCC does not teach that the mass is the re-sacrifice of Christ. However, the words of the Council of Trent – still upheld by Rome - are quite clear in their meaning:
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated [killed as sacrifice] in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross . . . For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. . . If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice. . . and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema.
“Trent teaches that just as Christ was the divine victim and was offered and immolated on the cross as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin, so in the mass, which is a distinct sacrifice in its own right, he is referred to as the divine victim who is again offered and immolated as a propitiatory sacrifice, just as he was immolated on the cross. The only difference, according to Trent, between the sacrifice of the mass and the sacrifice of the cross is that one is bloody and the other unbloody. Trent teaches that just as Christ was the divine victim and was offered and immolated on the cross as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin, so in the mass, which is a distinct sacrifice in its own right, he is referred to as the divine victim who is again offered and immolated as a propitiatory sacrifice, just as he was immolated on the cross. The only difference, according to Trent, between the sacrifice of the mass and the sacrifice of the cross is that one is bloody and the other unbloody.

“The Church attempts to get around this problem by claiming that the sacrifice of the mass is not a different sacrifice from that of Calvary but the same sacrifice perpetuated through time. Because God is beyond time the sacrifice of the cross is always present with him, and therefore the sacrifice of the mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary. This logic is a semantic smoke-screen: the sacrifice of the cross was an historic space-time event which occurred once and can never be repeated. The application of the Lord’s sacrifice goes on through time in terms of the Holy Spirit bringing men to receive the benefits of his finished work, and the commemoration of his sacrifice goes on through time, but the sacrifice itself cannot be perpetuated.” (William Webster, The Eucharist)

I appreciate your attempts to exegete John 6:63, I do not believe you are taking into account the broader context of symbolic language used generally in Scripture and specifically by Christ Himself. See the third post in this series for more details.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, there is a point on which you seem to contradict yourself. Your opening paragraph asserts that the RCC perpetuates a real sacrifice of Christ (“…What kind of a 'sacrifice' would it be if the body and blood of Christ were not the literal body and blood of Christ? It would be no sacrifice at all. Would you have the entire early Church performing meaningless sacrifices?”) But later you say Christ is not really sacrificed (“Jesus is not sacrificed over and over again at the Mass. “) but simply re-presented. I understand this concept, but in light of the once-and-for-all finality of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross, I again would say that there is no need for physically eating or drinking the literal body and blood of Christ. "For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed." (I Cor. 5:7) His death is an accomplished fact. "Let us therefore celebrate the feast . . . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (I Cor. 5:8) We are called no longer to a sacrifice, but to a feast.

You assert the only alternative to literal transubstantiation with literal flesh and blood is a “playacting sacrifice.” I think you fail to recognize the reality of the spiritual nature and instead elevate the physical to unwarranted height. Again, the spiritual is no less literal or real than the physical.

Matthew Wireman said...

Okay, this really is my last post. I told my wife it would be. This has truly been helpful for me and I appreciate everyone's time. As I am not studying this right now in my classes, I don't feel like I should spread myself too thin - rather giving myself to what I am currently studying.

Note of clarification: I did not mean to be lazy in defending my exegesis of John. Rather, it is obvious that we are coming at the text with too many different presuppositions...that's whay I said "I think we are totally missing each other". This has been a debate that I doubt we will be able to solve in comment boxes. I did not mean to offend.

Rather, I will direct you to some very good articles relating to this topic. This will help explain where I am coming from.

Thank you.
John 6.53
The Eucharist
Sola Scriptura
Various Articles by William Webster

Bryan said...

Kind of tying two of your recent series together, I would like to point out that this is "the Year of the Eucharist" by proclamation of the Pope. One of the things recommended during this year is a renewed emphasis on "Eucharist Adoration". This is an abominable practice. After the priest "conjures" Christ into the wafer, it is then put on display in a large golden container called a "Monstrance". The people attending are encouraged to gaze in awe at the fancy golden bread box and direct their prayers toward the Christ presence that it contains! Roger Oakland of Understand the Times International www.understandthetimes.org has taken on the thankless task of (among other things)informing Christians about just how far the Roman Catholic Church has abandoned Truth.

Anonymous said...

Hola "mono" van diesel!
Saludos.
Cuantos meses tiene el bebe?
Acerca del tema de la transustantación... mucho para leer en ingles ahora.

Anonymous said...

I didn't read all that long stuff. No time. But I wonder if — in two millenium's of people eating his flesh and drinking His blood — Jesus has yet run out of flesh and blood. He must be getting close...I mean I know would be long gone after at least a few centuries of people chomping on me.

vandorsten said...

Damienc, et al,
My apolgies for the hiatus - it was not my intention to lose the inertia of our conversation here. I have been out of town and my wife has had a death in her family, so time has simply not allowed that i respond to your comments, though i fully intend to do so as soon as I am able to put appripriate thought into it - hopefully this weekend. Thanks for your patience and your passion.

Curious Servant said...

Nice conclusion. Better than I thought it would be.

Thanks for the intellectual activity these posts have brought.

Unknown said...

I love your conviction, your beautiful command of the written word and your patience with those who feel it necessary to respond to your posts with verbal thrashings due to their insecurities and need to put you in your place because "their" view on religion and spirituality is the ONLY correct one.

You are beautiful and open-minded. I love that you freely express how you see and believe things yet don't try to force it down the throat with a self important, ignorant zeal.

Keep preaching YOUR words. This is how it should be. We don't all have to agree what's right, but we certainly need to try to do what's right. Let your light shine brightly my brother.

I am deeply sorry to hear of your loss. I hope that healing and some measure of comfort may come to all concerned soon.

I hope your baby boy is healthy and strong.

May you and your family be well, safe and surrounded by love and happiness.

Matthew Wireman said...

I spoke to a Patristics Scholar, Dr. Michael Haykin from Toronto, and he explained to me that there is no consensus as to whether the patristics were literalists when it came to the Lord's Supper. That is, like I mentioned before, you cannot read the early church fathers' realist language with contemporary and medeival interpretation of literalism. This is to read falsely.

Secondly, it was mentioned that Luther held to the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is a total misrepresentation. Luther firmly rejected transubstantiation, private masses, communion in only one kind, bowing before the elemetns, etc.

Thirdly, as relates to Damienc's question: "Why didn't Jesus correct the disciples that left when the teaching got rough?" This is a much bigger question than this verse has to do with. Jesus preached in order that people would not understand him. That's right...Jesus said in Matt 13.13 - "This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand" (Isaiah's very call Isaiah 6.9-10). One may object, Jn 6.53 is not a parable. You are right, it is not, but it is a picture of what Jesus was doing in the larger salation-historical model. Consider: He did not do mighty works in his hometown because of their unbelief Matt 13.58. Following Damienc's logic, Jesus would surely have done mighty works so that people would believe in him...wouldn't he?

Back to Jn 6. First of all, it is a precarious thing to draw such a doctrine as transubstantiation from one verse...let alone the apocalyptic way of saying things the way John did.

If this doctrine is so clear, why did the other gospel writers not pick up on the saying. Surely they would have something to say regarding a literal interpretation. Even the Catholic defense is not as clear as they would hope. The crux of the argument lies in the fact that verse 63-65 teach that only those whom the Father calls will be able to accept such a hard teaching. Jesus tells people that the words are spirit and life...he enumerates his words to give greater clarity to his hearers. Damienc and David have said that "flesh" in v.63 should be understood as "unbelief". If it is unbelief and worldliness, why does Jesus say that the words he speaks are spirit and life? Let me clarify. The opposite of unbelief is...belief. The opposite of worldliness is..."spiritual-mindedness". The parallel for the Catholic position does not stand.

That may have been hard to follow. Let me try this way. Jesus is following his teaching from v.22, as David mentiond. What is hard to conceive is how Jesus moves from the spiritual realities of coming to him and believing in him to what David claims is the physical realities. **John 6:26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.”** Jesus is still speaking of spiritual realities. **John 6:35   Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst...John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”** Jesus is speaking of belief...not of eating flesh. He is re-defining what is true manna and what is truly eating.

Jesus is attempting to show them that yes his words are hard to understand, but those called by his Father will come. A little counter-argument...How do you explain the clear and obvious language that no one can come to Jesus unless God calls them? It is not by human cunning, but it is by God's calling them. Picture yourself on the playground, two guys are picking teams for basketball. If Jim calls, you go on his team. If Bob, his team. You are not welcome and will not be on Jim's team unless he calls you.

As I said earlier, there is no consensus as to what the patristics taught - and you can't pull the trump card that this is the way the Church has always taught. A good book to read, better than Kelly, is Everett Ferguson's chapter, "The Lord's Supper in Church History: The Early Church" in Dale R. Stoffer, ed., The Lord's Supper: Believers Church Perspectives (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1997), 21-45. This is much better than Kelly on the topic.

vandorsten said...

I do have some further comments regarding both Dave's and Damienc's statements - and I am not trying to redirect focus away from the current topic of the church patriarchs - but I do have a question for either Dave or Damienc.

I assume that you would agree that there is a sense in which Jesus had two bodies, yes? One body - before his death - was clearly subject to weakness, aging, etc. like our own bodies are. Hypothetically, had He not been crucified, that body would have aged and died as all human beings die.

When Christ died, He was resurrected with a "resurrection body" - still His physical body, but transformed and perfected, free from suffering, weakness, illness, death, etc. Paul says the resurrection body is raised "imperishable ... in glory ... in power ... a spiritual body." (1 Cor. 15:42-44)

Does Catholic doctrine teach which of Christ's bodies is present in transubstantiation? I haven't found anything that addresses this and I'm curious to know. Would this, in your opinion, even be relevant in this discussion?

Matthew Wireman said...

Damien & David~

Thank you for your charity. There is a difference between realism and literalism. Realist language is saying, like I said a while back, "This is the body and blood of Christ" where the copulative verb is used to equate the subject and the predicate. In other words "x is y". Literalism means that we should understand that "x is equal to y". This is saying more than "x is y".

As I said before, there is no consensus among patristic scholars as to how we should interpret the patristics' realist language of how they speak of the Lord's Supper. The burden of proof lies on you as much as it does on me to prove otherwise. I believe to take a literalist interpretation, as opposed to a realist, is wrong. This is where we disagree. The RCC teaches a literalist interpretation that is loaded with a lot of presuppositions having to deal with their arriving at specific doctrines. Like I said, when you necessitate that the patristics are to be readd literally, you are wearing medeival and post-medeival glasses. That is, you are reading them as though they had always understood the Lord's Supper to be literal.

As Kelly has written in his "Early Christian Doctrines" David cited earlier, he states that it is unclear how we should read Tertullian. I don't think the argument should be fought on whether we are reading him right. Rather, we need to go to the Scriptures and rightly interpret how Jesus' words play into the larger context of John 6. And I am glad that you have gone there...

You are right...I meant to say that Jesus' words are hard to accept, insofar that they were hard to understand. Let me explain. You say that I have woven a tangled web by the logic. I believe the logic is clear. It seems that you believe the only alternative is literalism to Jesus' words. I think you are jumping to a too quick a conclusion. John is writing about belief. It seems like hermeneutical gymnastics to say that Jesus is talking about belief in a transcendental sense and then he comes to some level of literal eating a drinking here on earth.

The words are hard to accept because those who have not been chosen by the Father will not believe. Side question that relates to the picture: Why didn't Jesus return to this hard saying that was hard to accept if it is so pivotal to his theology? That is, why didn't Jesus say something to the effect: Those who genuinely believe in me will truly eat my flesh and drink my blood. He is driving home the point that unbelief is the ruling issue in those who have not been chosen. (Notice the shadow of the desert wanderings when John tells us that they grumbled, like the Israelites did when given manna).

You say that Jesus is "going into this sermon about eating his flesh and drinking his blood"...no he is not. This is a distortion of what Jesus' purpose in preaching this was. It was not a teaching about the Eucharist! It was about unbelief. You say that I say it all boils down to the fact that they were not chosen by God. This is right! It is ALSO right that it is because they do not believe. The two are intricately tied together.

My point in bringing in the counter-point had to do with the fact that the RCC has to re-read the clear teaching of God's predetermination of who would belong to his Son. You say the teaching is easy...yes, it is quite clear that Jesus is showing that belief is a gift from God and not from man's ability to weigh all the arguments and just be smart enough to figure out the language "it has not been granted to him by the Father" (v. 65). To bring the point home he tells them that even one among the Twelve is not chosen, which is an explanation of v. 65.

You marginalize my position regarding God's choosing people. In fact, you make it sound fallacious. This is truly sad. Listen. Rather, read. Jesus said the reason they had not believed was because it had not been granted. Why do you fail to see this? Regarding free will, I will not enter into that debate here. You can check out my blog in a few weeks as I will deal with this question.

I will say this: Jesus is not preaching a sermon on "predestination". Nor is this a sermon about the Last Supper. This is a sermon about belief. The fact that the people do not believe has to do with the Father granting it to them. You read way too much in this text in an attempt to support your presupposition that the Lord's Supper is literal and not realist language.

What is of particular interest is that this was not during the Last Supper. This is way before the fact. Rather, Jesus is redefining what eating and drinking from the provision of God is. This is why the reference to the Israelites is also key in understanding this text. As Hebrews 3-4 fleshes out even more, although the Israelites ate and drank from God's hand, they failed to believe. Jesus is loading the reference to eating and drinking with belief language. That is, you can eat manna but still not believe. But those who believe first will truly partake of Christ. Again, I am comfortable using realist language (as Jesus did). But it is unnecessary and horrible hermeneutics to read into the text a literalist interpretation.

You offer an alternative, but it is not a very good one. How can you read over the teaching of this passage that Jesus is speaking of belief in the Son...belief that is a gift? From verse 27 to the end, Jesus is speaking in metaphorical language. Surely you do not think that because something is symbolic that it is easier to accept! Jesus is using symbolism all over the place (v. 27, 32,33, 35, 48, etc.). To make it even cleaer that he is speaking metaphorically, read v. 35 where Jesus says those who eat the bread of life will never hunger nor ever thirst. Therefore, to be consistent with the RCC interpretation is to say that if you eat Jesus' flesh, which you say is present means that you will never hunger. How can you play fast and loose with the interpretation? How can you be metaphorical here and literal just a few verses later. This will not do! God's choosing equated with belief is quite clear (v. 37, 44, 65, etc.).

Regarding Luther. I appreciate the clarification. You are right we don't need to get into Luther's interpretation of consubstantiation. That would not be helpful. However, I want to make sure that we understand that Luther did not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is telling even if you want to use him to say that even he believed in Christ's physical presence.

Yes there will be Protestants that say the fathers meant this and Catholics who believe they said that. My point was to make clear that there is no consensus. I appreciate you clarifying the Catholic position. I just wanted to say that because the RCC believes the fathers meant something literally does not close the case. That was my point. In other words, just because it is the consensus of the RCC...this does not prove it is literal. Make sense? As for the book, I will ask Dr. Haykin some more regarding this. It was a very short dialogue and I lament the fact that we did not get to discuss more. I will talk with him more in January, Lord willing. He and I will discuss this issue more then.

Again, I really appreciate your comments, David. They have been very charitable...

vandorsten said...

I have to admit I'm relieved to leave the patristics area behind simply because I think we'll find it more profitable focusing on Scripture than history (not to negate the importance of history by any means.)

Anyway - i have a couple more questions if my Catholic friends will indulge me. (I would like to add that these questions are not meant to be leading - I have no hidden agenda in asking them other than I am curious to know and haven't found anything that addresses them.) Here they are:

>> In RCC doctrine, is the Eucharist temporal? That is, will we always feast on the "body" of Christ?

>>What happens if a non-believer eats the Eucharist? Does Christ enter him or her?

>>What happens if a Christian (but non-Catholic) person takes Eucharist in Mass?

>>This may sound weird, but what if a person gets sick and throws up the Eucharist afterwards? Are the remains still Christ?(My in-laws told a story about a relative who was in great distress because this happened to her son. Their priest didn't know what to do about it.)

>>Is Christ's physical, ressurrected body infinte in its physicality?

vandorsten said...

Mike T., thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your comments and sensitivity to the topic at hand. I can definitly see how you may have been offended by off-handed comments.

One of Mike's comments (regarding the link to transubstantiation and salvation) actually prompts me to add another question to those listed above, if I may.

>>As one who does not find sufficient evidence for the doctrine of transubstantiation, would the RCC consider me saved? Would you?