Transsubstantiation

tomndebb · February 5, 2003, 12:11am

No. But, as has already been pointed out more than one time in this thread, they do believe in the Divine Presence at Communion. Transubstantiation is an RCC theological construct, but many Protestants believe that Jesus is present at Communion. The problem is that you continue to claim that for (all) Protestants it is only symbolic, and that statement is in error.

Polycarp · February 5, 2003, 12:31am

Orthodox, (almost all) Episcopalians, and (most) Lutherans do believe in the Doctrine of the Real Presence, which amounts to “Christ said that the bread and wine were His Body and Blood, so we believe Him” – even if we have no idea how. As I said above, transubstantiation is the attempt of the normative Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, to explain in the terms and categories his school of philosophy, the Scholastics, derived from Aristotelian metaphysics, how exactly something that looks like bread and wine before and after the prayer of consecration can nonetheless be changed as God told us to do in remembrance of Him. Interestingly, though, it’s pretty evident that the Greek word anamnesis which is translated as “remembrance” is not merely the equivalent of “celebrating the anniversary of some event in the past” – the “memorial” concept of most Protestants. Tripp Hudgins of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary has the following to say:

The Greek word for remembrance is anamnesis. Jesus said “ Do this for my anamnesis.” The word means more than our word “remembrance.” [Catholic theologian and liturgical scholar Dom Gregory] Dix and others have pointed out that anamnesis means not just remember, but to recall or represent the past event in such a way as to make it currently operative, to make its power available to the here and now. The early Christians were not talking about performing another sacrifice; rather, they were talking about making the power of Christ’s offering of himself in the present moment .

[Baptist theologian Tom] Halbrooks goes on to explain that it is the community, those participating within the liturgy, those responding to and within this anamnetical act that are transformed. The presence of Christ is within and around the body of believers. It is the very act of recollection, of remembrance, of embodiment that enables the believer to enter into this moment of sacrifice.

In the same vein Halbrooks speaks of the elements, the bread and the wine. In his view, they are not sacramental. It is not the elements that are transformed. Yet, they are more than “mere symbols.” They “are signs that point to Christ’s presence.” Through this reliving, the reentering into the presence of Christ, of Jesus engaging with believers in his community, we again experience the great love of God in the present moment of the meal. “[In] our hearts we experience communion with Christ and with each other. It is a fellowship meal in the fullest sense. Through this communion we are truly the Body of Christ, for as Christ makes himself present to us all, he makes us all one in himself.”

It is important to note again that the community is what is transformed within the liturgy and not the elements. As a Baptist, Halbrooks does not have a theology of “transubstantiation” or anything similar. But his understanding of the sacramental nature of community, of the mystical nature of an anamnetical rite are key to our understanding of the Eucharist. What is it that makes this so important? Why should we look to community and not to the bread and wine?

Nicholas Sagovsky, in the midst of a wider conversation on Christian ecumenism, speaks to the nature of community extensively. His focus stems from his understanding of the Greek word koinonia, community. For Sagovsky, koinonia, speaks to communion, shared life, and intentionality. Christian community is not something that just happens when two or three are gathered. It is something intentionally lived out. It is the expression of identity. There is no other ritual that better expresses this idea of koinonia than the Eucharist.

In Paul’s writing, there is the emphasis on the bread and the wine of the eucharist as a koinonia in the body and blood of Christ, on the sharing of goods through the collection of the Jerusalem Christians, on mutual sharing of sufferings, of comfort, and in all this the repeated imperative of unity. There is a koinonia between the members of the community, which is brought about and by and in the Spirit, which is the Spirit of Jesus Christ .

He goes on to say that koinonia in no blissful, easy existence magically rendered by the Holy Spirit to facilitate the real presence of Christ. Sagovsky states that we are dealing with humanity and our relationships involve “conflict, reconciliation and risk .” He does agree with Halbrooks in the sacramental nature of community, but explicitly states just how difficult, how conflictual the Body of Christ is. It is the nature of the salvific act of Christ, lived out in a fallen people. However, this is lived out within the liturgical act of the Eucharist “in which the conflict and the risk in Christ’s dying is incorporated within the wider liturgical affirmation of the resurrection .” The anamnesis of Christ’s action is a recollection of hope “because within it the annihilation of the crusifixion is transcended in the koinonia of the living body, united at worship .”

Rowan Williams [theologian and recently-named Archbishop of Canerbury] graces us with a great deal of thought regarding the humanity of the Body of Christ. This anthropology of the faithful and the Crucified is lived out in the deep and abiding grace that God rains down upon us in the Eucharist. Williams wants to insist that humanity is indeed bound up individually and culturally in sign-making. The very existence of liturgy and symbol is proof positive of this reality. For Williams, the embodiment of our faith is essential. It is the only way that we can express the inexpressible. “…[The] work of God for our salvation is ‘spiritual’ – i.e. it is not itself an item, an object that can be isolated in our world, it is supremely alien to the everyday world, yet not in any way an identifiable reality in competition with it; so it can be only shown or signified materially .”

In the liturgy of the Eucharist, the elements are overflowing with the perceived grace of God. This economy of salvation (oikonomia) is what defines the lived community. It is through sign-making, the self identification of Christian community that grace is perceived. Grace is not created through the act. Similar to Sagovsky’s idea of koinonia, it is the intentionality of the gathered community, the embodiment of belief through liturgy, that grace is perceived, that transformation is underscored. Through this attentive act, the great abiding love of God is made manifest within God’s own people.

Above all, for Williams, Christ himself is the sacrament. Though there is a sense in which the elements are focal points for sacramental understanding and Williams wants to strongly emphasize the embodied nature of the sacramental community. For him, Christ is “the sign both of the active pressure and creative grace of God, a new ‘law,’ and also of obedience, love and gift as the shape of a possible community, a new Israel .”

In sum, modern understanding of the Real Presence does not claim a “constant (or repeated) unbloody sacrifice of Christ over and over” but rather a mystical event whereby we are present at the one Sacrifice of Christ and the one Last Supper through vividly recalling before God the events of His last days as a mortal. This is why in every Eucharist the Words of Institution pronounced by Christ are repeated verbatim – to fix firmly in our minds what it is in which we participate.

X_Slayer_ALE · February 5, 2003, 1:18am

Thaaaats where that tinge of guilt comes from! I knew it came from somewhere. I think mine was from the assistant catechist (who was a teenager, I believe). I contentedly chew the body of Christ now, help it down with a sip of blood …er wine … whatever.

Its a matter of faith. I dont think it can be made paletable rationally. Its what we catholics believe and anyone who cant stomach the concept can take up a diffferent denomination.

beagledave · February 5, 2003, 1:42am

I believe that teminology is part of the debate. The traditional RCC doctrine of transubstantion teaches that the “substance” of bread and wine is changed into the body and blood Christ. (with the understanding of the “accidents” as already outlined)

My understanding of consubstantiation (a term that apparently has fallen out of favor with some Lutherans and others, I believe) is that it also addresses the idea of “Real Presence”, but suggests that the bread and wine “co-exist” with Christ’s physical body and blood…but that the bread and wine still essentially remain bread and wine.

Your Lutherans…Episcopalians etc…fall more into that camp.

(This is where Poly or one of my other Christian brethern will tell me that I’m full of crap )

The Calvinistic camp (and others) follow the teachings of Luther contemporary Ulrich Zwingli et al …that the breaking of the bread serves as a “remembrance”, with no real presence.

lynn73 · February 5, 2003, 1:32pm

Thanks for the correction, I’ll try to remember that not all Protestants believe it is symbolic as I do. Of course, I do believe in Christ’s presence because He’s with me always since I accepted Him into my heart. I just don’t think there’s a special presence in the wafer and grape juice, but that’s just my humble opinion.

High_Deity · February 5, 2003, 1:50pm

this is a little off topic, but i must ask… is canibilism only acceptable when you are eating your savior?

Polycarp · February 5, 2003, 1:54pm

Okay, let it never be said that I refused a request from a brother in Christ: “Beagledave, you’re full of crap!”

Seriously, I wish a Lutheran would jump in here and explain their understanding of consubstantiation, because I read a clarification of that once, and it works a paradigm shift on the concepts we use that really helps explain their theology. I won’t even try to give an explanation of my shoddy grasp of their thinking – but it’s definitely worth reading!

As for the rest of us – Orthodox, Anglicans, and some Protestants alike – we don’t so much reject transubstantiation as we do the entire Scholastic substance/accidents conceptualization that is used to explain it. We simply say, in response to the prayer offered up in the Great Thanksgiving, the Canon of the Mass, Christ is really and truly present under the forms of bread and wine. How? We don’t have a clue. Why? For the strengthening of the faithful by the reception of communion. Well, isn’t He present everywhere? Absolutely. But in the Divine omnipresence, there is no focus – nothing intelligible to our limited human conceptions. But in the bread and wine, He becomes present to us in a special way, a focused way in which we can truly be in communion with Him. Mann ist wass Sie isst – we are living members of the Mystical Body of Christ; we consume Him under the form of bread and wine to be a part of Him. In the words of the postcommunion prayer that cjhoworth and I love:

BTW, the old fundie. thing about being “washed in the blood of the Lamb” has an interesting twist if you look at it in this way. Sounds really ooky, doesn’t it? But consider this: blood only stains and clots when it’s outside the body. Within the body, blood functions to cleanse and nurture – it carries nutrition and oxygen to the members of the body, and carries away their waste. “For you together are the body of Christ, and individually its members.” The standard formula, of course, is that the priest administers the body and blood of Christ to the assembled faithful – but it’s just as true to say that he gives consecrated bread and wine to the Body of Christ for its strengthening and cleansing!