How can you have the Real Presence without Transubstantiation?


#1

On the Methodist group, someone told me:

"Methodists do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We do not believe in transubstantiation, the official Roman Catholic version of how this miracle occurs. Nor do we believe that the Eucharist is a continuing sacrifice, as the
sacrifice for our sins was accomplished once and for
all on the cross. The Eucharist is not just a symbol. This is clearly spelled out in the liturgy of the church and in the
General Conferences acceptance of “This Holy Mystery"
as the official explaination of communion.”

It’s my understanding that the Real Presence in the Eucharist has to be done by Transubstantiation, correct? Therefore, it’s not the Real Presence if it does not have Transubstantiation? Don’t they need a preist to do it as well?


#2

Consubstantiation (Luthers view) is the view that the bread and wine of Communion / the Lord’s Supper are seen to spiritually be the flesh and blood of Jesus, but yet the bread and wine are still actually only bread and wine. In this way, it is different from

Calvin’s view: In the Lord’s Supper believers are lifted up to heaven by the Holy Spirit, where Christ is seated, and feed on him by faith. Calvin then proceeds to confess: “Now if anyone should ask me how this takes place, I shall not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare. And, to speak more plainly, I rather experience than understand it. Therefore, I here embrace without controversy the truth of God in which I may safely rest. He declares his flesh the food of my soul, his blood its drink [John 6:53ff.]. I offer my soul to him to be fed with such food. In his Sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I do not doubt that he himself truly presents them, and that I receive them.” (Institutes, 4.17.32)

Transubstantiation (Catholic view) where the bread and the wine are believed to actually become the body and blood of Jesus.


#3

My wife (a Baptist) asked me last night about transubstantiation. She heard the terms “accidents” and “substance” before, but wasn’t quite sure what they meant. I explained it like this:

Your body constitutes the “accidents” of you. If you were to lose a limb, you would still be you, even though your “accidents” have changed. If you were to loose all of your limbs, your eyes, your ears, and your tongue, you would still be the same you in substance, even though your accidents have changed. This also goes for mental impairment (severe brain damage). You are still you in substance. When you die and your soul separates from your body, the accidents remain while the substance is changed - it is no longer you, it is merely the “accidents” of you.

Conversely, in transubstantiation, the accidents remain the same while the substance is changed entirely. The bread and wine still seem to be bread and wine, but the substance is Christ Himself, body, blood, soul, and divinity. Under the Lutheran consubstantiation view (as I understand it), both the substance of the bread and the substance of Christ are present. This, in my mind, is a logical absurdity. You cannot have two substances in the same thing. You cannot simultaniously have both “a person” and “not a person” in the same thing. An alligator cannot be at once an alligator and a refrigerator, for example. If it is an alligator, it is not a refrigerator. If it is a refrigerator, it is not an alligator. Similarly, if the Eucharist is the person of Christ, it cannot simultaniously be not the person of Christ.

Calvin’s view (as I understand it) denies any change in substance, but insists on a spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. I have yet to grasp how this is in any way different than the spiritual presence of Christ in the believer or how this is somehow more special than Christ’s presence “when two or more are gathered in [His] name”, but nonetheless this is their position.

BTW, all of the “accidents” and “substance” talk is derived from Aristotilian philosophy, which if it were taught more frequently would completely undermine the Lutheran position among sentient people (IMNSHO). Here is a link which goes into much more detail on the matter (pardon the pun), from the illustrious University of Notre Dame.

God Bless,
RyanL


#4

From what I’ve read, transubstantiation is the “change of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at the consecration of the Mass.” (Baltimore Catechism, 350) It’s been posted on this site before, but here is the link to one of the miracles in which you can actually “see” Jesus in the Eucharist:

malankara.net/eucharist/eucharist.htm


#5

You CANNOT have the real presence without Transubstantiation. Also you CANNOT have a valid Consecration if it is not done by a validly ordained priest of the Catholic Church, save for some schismatic groups like the Orthodox who still have valid priests.

The methodists do not have valid priests, therefore there is NO CONSECRATION.

Ken

[quote=Paris Blues]On the Methodist group, someone told me:

"Methodists do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We do not believe in transubstantiation, the official Roman Catholic version of how this miracle occurs. Nor do we believe that the Eucharist is a continuing sacrifice, as the
sacrifice for our sins was accomplished once and for
all on the cross. The Eucharist is not just a symbol. This is clearly spelled out in the liturgy of the church and in the
General Conferences acceptance of “This Holy Mystery"
as the official explaination of communion.”

It’s my understanding that the Real Presence in the Eucharist has to be done by Transubstantiation, correct? Therefore, it’s not the Real Presence if it does not have Transubstantiation? Don’t they need a preist to do it as well?
[/quote]


#6

Question: How can a piece of unleavened bread take on the substance of a divine God?

Answer: The same way a divine God can became fully human at the same time.

Why is this so difficult to understand???

Notworthy


#7

Of course Catholics think you can’t have the Real Presence without transubstantiation.

And of course Protestants (those of us who believe in the Real Presence) disagree.

Even the Orthodox don’t entirely agree among themselves on whether transubstantiation is a suitable term.

Edwin


#8

The reason Protestant groups claim to have the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist seems to be the same reason so many who obviously do not believe in Catholicism style themselves Catholic: they like the sound of it. In defense of those Protestants who do claim to have a Real Presence, they do believe that their view on the Eucharist expresses something very real. They just don’t seem to be very intellectually honest if they can’t come to terms with the fact that their view is at odds with Catholicism and that the two traditions mean radically different things by the term “Real Presence.”

So, in short, I have no problem with them claiming they have a Real Presence (A) meaning that they think Christ is present in whatever terms they describe in the Eucharist. But they should not pretend in discussions with Catholics that Real Presence (A) is the exact same thing as Real Presence (B), transubstantiaton.


#9

Read this with an open mind if you dispute the true presence.


#10

Very easy,by stepping into His courtyard with praise ,thanksgiving and worship.Draw close to Him and He will draw close to you and bring you into that SECRET PLACE. :thumbsup: God Bless


#11

It’s always seemed interesting to me that Protestants can accept that God sent manna from Heaven 40 years to sustain our Hebrew ancestors; that he multipied loaves and fishes; but turning bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is some how out of His depth.


#12

[quote=StCsDavid]It’s always seemed interesting to me that Protestants can accept that God sent manna from Heaven 40 years to sustain our Hebrew ancestors; that he multipied loaves and fishes; but turning bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is some how out of His depth.
[/quote]

The difference is people saw these mirricles with their physical eyes.I guess many of us are doubting Thomas,s. :confused: God Bless


#13

[quote=SPOKENWORD]Very easy,by stepping into His courtyard with praise ,thanksgiving and worship.Draw close to Him and He will draw close to you and bring you into that SECRET PLACE. :thumbsup: God Bless
[/quote]

But God is asking us to do more than this. He’s given us the means to actually BE close to him - through the Eucharist!

What a wonderful gift indeed!


#14

[quote=b_justb]Consubstantiation (Luthers view) is the view that the bread and wine of Communion / the Lord’s Supper are seen to spiritually be the flesh and blood of Jesus, but yet the bread and wine are still actually only bread and wine. In this way, it is different from
[/quote]

Strictly speaking, Lutherans would be very much hesitant to call their belief ‘consubstantiation.’ I forget which document it is, but it’s easiest to remember that they believe Christ is present “with, under and in” the bread.

It’s my understanding that the Real Presence in the Eucharist has to be done by Transubstantiation, correct? Therefore, it’s not the Real Presence if it does not have Transubstantiation? Don’t they need a preist to do it as well?

Well, as a Catholic you can’t deny transubstantiation. But, why would Protestants feel bound by that? You can believe in the Real Presence without believing in transubstantiation, strictly speaking, but as Catholics we can only assert that whether or not you believe it doesn’t matter, because that is what happens.

And yes, they would need a priest with valid orders to confect the Sacrament-- something which Methodists don’t have.


#15

[quote=Tonks40]But God is asking us to do more than this. He’s given us the means to actually BE close to him - through the Eucharist!

What a wonderful gift indeed!
[/quote]

Have you been in that SECRET PLACE? OH,those hidden treasures!! :wink: God Bless


#16

[quote=SPOKENWORD]The difference is people saw these mirricles with their physical eyes.I guess many of us are doubting Thomas,s. :confused: God Bless
[/quote]

I’ve never seen manna. I’ve never seen fish multiply. I do believe in my source for the fact that those things happened, sacred scripture. The same holds true for the Eucharist. It’s all based on scripture.


#17

[quote=StCsDavid]I’ve never seen manna. I’ve never seen fish multiply. I do believe in my source for the fact that those things happened, sacred scripture. The same holds true for the Eucharist. It’s all based on scripture.
[/quote]

So am I relying on Sacred Scriptures. There were witness in the scriptures. The problem is no physical evidence. :confused: God Bless


#18

The church’s doctrine from the council of trent - the doctrine of the real presence - states that after the consecration of the bread and wine our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really and substantially contained under the appearance of those percebtible realities [Neuner Dupius 1513]

The council then goes on to state that “this change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly named transubstantiation.” [ND 1519]

It is indeed right and fitting that this term be used - and we should resist and be extremely suspicious of ANY attempt to rescind its use in this context - but it is, I think, nevertheless, always worth just bearing in mind that the word transubtantiation is a term used to identify the doctrine of the real presence. In a very very very hair splitting strict sense one might even be able to say that there is no such thing as the doctrine of transubtantiation. What there is instead is the doctrine of the REAL PRESENCE and the word “transubtantiation” has been deemed by holy Mother Church as a fitting term to use to describe it.

I suppose what I am saying is that the doctrine of the real presence is a theological doctrine and as such touches on an ineffable mystery. Transubstantiation - borrowing as it does from a particular metaphysics (the distinction between accident and substance) is seen as a fitting way of talking about the ultimate mystery.

The doctrine of the Real presence is theology not philosophy. It’s aim is to crystalize the discussion of a mystery. It’s aim is not to anoint a particular metaphysics.


#19

The following is perhaps a more succint presentation of the Catholic position (one of the anathema sit’s of Trent)

ND 1527

If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine remains together wtih the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and unique 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 whole substance of His blood, while only the species [appearances] of bread and wine remain, a change which the Catholic Church very fittingly call transubstantiation, anathema sit


#20

[quote=Paris Blues]On the Methodist group, someone told me:

"Methodists do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We do not believe in transubstantiation, the official Roman Catholic version of how this miracle occurs. Nor do we believe that the Eucharist is a continuing sacrifice, as the
sacrifice for our sins was accomplished once and for
all on the cross. The Eucharist is not just a symbol. This is clearly spelled out in the liturgy of the church and in the
General Conferences acceptance of “This Holy Mystery"
as the official explaination of communion.”

It’s my understanding that the Real Presence in the Eucharist has to be done by Transubstantiation, correct? Therefore, it’s not the Real Presence if it does not have Transubstantiation? Don’t they need a preist to do it as well?
[/quote]

I know that there are a few Protestant groups who do believe Jesus is really present in Communion. I’m glad you wrote this because I wondered what Methodists believed about that. Yet our Catholic Church teaches that only a validly ordained priest can consecrate the Eucharist, and the Church does not recognize Protestants to have a valid priesthood. Obviously, the Catholic teachings and that Protestant view contradict each other.

As a Catholic, I believe what the Catholic Church teaches about this. But the Church also teaches about “Spiritual Communion” which makes the graces of Holy Communion available to those who are unable to actually recieve Jesus in the Eucharist. In attempting to reconcile the sincere desire of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters in faith who truly believe Jesus is present in Communion with what our Church teaches about the need for a valid priesthood, I have come to suspect that what they may be recieving is a “Spiritual Communion”. Spiritual Communions don’t need a validly ordained priest to be present; they don’t even need the elements; spiritual Communions simply require a sincere desire to recieve Jesus in Communion.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.