The short answer is that we believe that Christ is really present in the sacrament of Communion. To understand this, we must remember what a "sacrament" is. The prayer book defines it as "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace" (BCP 1979 pp. 357-361). In short, it is a physical thing, like bread, wine, water, oil, that God uses to share the presence and power of Jesus Christ, through the working of His Spirit. Yet, sacraments are not magic. It's not like we believe that priests have the power to "call down God from on high" to do what we want. No human, not even a bishop, has the power to make God do anything or to define how God will act. Yet, God does have the power to define how He Himself will act. And He has promised, in Scripture, to work in certain ways when we do certain things (2Ch 7:14; Jer 18:5-10; Num 21:8-9; Isa 55:11; Mat 9:21, 18:18-20).
One of these promises is when Jesus said of the Last Supper that "This is my body... this is my blood..." (Mat 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:17-20; 1Co 11:23-34). Another promise related to Communion is "whoever eats my body and drinks my blood will have life in him" (John 6:54-56). We believe that when we meet together as the Church and share in the Lord's Supper, that Christ is present in a real and unique way, so that it is an actual "partaking" or "communion" with the Risen Christ (BCP 1979, pp. 859-860; 1Co 10:16-22; Luke 24:25-31; Mat 18:18-20). This is because the Risen Christ fills the whole universe and is available to be present in a special way in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper (Col 1:15-17; Eph 1:22-23, 4:10).
In fact, along with St. Paul, we believe that to have the Lord's supper and not discern, or understand, that Christ is really present is to become guilty of "sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" (1Co 11:27-29). Therefore, when the priest or bishop consecrates the sacrament by saying the words of institution (This is my body... This is my blood), we believe that Christ becomes fully present in the sacrament for our strengthening. He becomes fully present, not because the minister "calls Him down", but because He has promised to be there.
Somewhere in the priest's Eucharistic prayer, there is also what is called the "Epiclesis". The Epiclesis comes from two Greek words for "upon" (epi) and "calling" (klesis), and thus epiclesis is where the priest calls upon the Holy Spirit to come upon the elements of bread and wine and make them into the presence of Christ. He usually says something like: "Sanctify [the bread and wine] by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in him". In this action the priest is not making Christ "more" present in the sacrament, because Christ is already fully present whenever the words of institution are said. Instead, the Epiclesis is a recognition of how Christ is present: by the power of His Spirit. It is the Spirit that makes mere wine and bread alive with the presence of Christ, just as He made a virgin's womb alive with the presence of Christ (Luke 1:35).
There are about six models in Christian history of how Christ is present (or not present) in the sacrament. First, there is the view of the Roman Catholics that is usually called "transubstantiation", coming from the Latin words "trans" (meaning beyond) and "substantia" (meaning substance). Their view is that when the sacrament is consecrated, it goes "beyond substance", and ceases to be bread and wine in any way. It becomes fully the body and blood of Christ, and it only appears and tastes like bread and wine.
The second model is the Lutheran model, usually called "consubstantiation" (from the Latin word "con", meaning "with"). In this view, the presence of Christ is "with" the substance of bread and wine. The sacrament is fully the substance of bread and wine, and fully the substance of body and blood at the same time. The body and blood of Christ is somehow "with, in, and under" the elements of bread and wine. Thus Communion becomes fully bread and wine, and fully Christ, just as Christ Himself is fully human, and fully God, at the same time.
The third model is the "spiritual presence" model, usually held by Presbyterians and some others. In this model, it is not so much that Christ is present as that His Spirit is present in the sacrament. Instead of Christ coming down to be "in" the sacrament, the Spirit raises us "up" to where Christ is. In the sacrament, the Spirit connects us with the risen Christ and His flesh and blood in heaven. I have heard this called the "elevator" view of the sacrament, because in it we are raised with Christ, and connected with Him in heaven.
The fourth model is called "receptionism". This is the model that Christ is only present if we receive Communion in faith and believe He is there. If we don't have faith, then He is not really there. This would seem contrary to Scripture, which says "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A person ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have died. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment" (1Co 11:27-31). Whether or not we want Christ to be present, He is there in the sacrament. If we come in good faith and have confessed our sin, the presence of Christ strengthens us. If we come without faith and with unclean consciences, the same presence of Christ will discipline us, and even harm us.
The fifth model is the "absence" model, where Christ is absent from the sacrament entirely. In this model, Christ and St. Paul are interpreted symbolically. When Christ said "this is my body", he really meant "this represents my body". Thus, in the absence model, Communion is not really a "communion with Christ", because it is just a symbol that He is not present in. No grace is given. Nothing happens for us except remembering what Christ did for us (which could be done by looking at a cross, without going to the trouble and mess of serving a meal). In the absence model, the Lord's Supper is just a memorial to Christ, kind of like a grave stone.
The sixth model is the Anglican model, called "real presence". Actually, "real presence" is the lack of a model. It is merely a statement that we believe that Christ is really present. We don't know exactly HOW He is present (other than by the power of His Spirit), because it is a mystery. But we do know that He is present as He promised. "Real Presence" does not work with receptionism or absence views, but it does work with the other models. You will find Anglicans who believe in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, spiritual presence, and who refuse to specify any model, but we all agree on the "real presence" of Christ.
Now the question arises: what does the real presence of Christ do in the sacrament? At least eight things:
• First, it connects us with Christ and is a "participation" in His life (1Co 10:16-17; 2Pe 1:4). It actually draws us up into His divine life and allows that life to flow through us, just like plugging an electric cord into a socket. Through communion, the suffering, crucified Christ, and the risen, victorious Christ, are made known to us, right here, right now (Luke 24:24-32). It opens a "portal" of tangible, touchable, intimate connection with the historic, physical Jesus Christ.
• Second, it assures us of forgiveness, because it is the "blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Mat 26:28). By participating in communion, we are participating in the action of our forgiveness, and accessing the blood by which we are forgiven. By coming into contact with the real presence of Jesus' crucified and resurrected body, we eat and digest the life giving flesh of the Messiah. In this, it is a medicine for our souls and bodies, which we take to spiritually strengthen us with the very presence of Jesus Christ.
• Third, it strengthens us for service. Jesus says that His flesh is "real food", and His blood is "real drink" (John 6:54-56). Physical food and drink are used for one main purpose: to strengthen our bodies to work and live. This spiritual food strengthens our spirits to work and live for God. It is a meal of grace and power to recharge our spiritual batteries.
• Fourth, it connects us with the Body of Christ across the world. Just as the elements are called "the body of Christ", so also the Church is called "the body of Christ" (1Co 11:23-12:27). When two or more Christians are gathered for Communion, they united not only to Christ, but to each other as well, as the Spirit unites them with the celebration of Communion as the focal point of that union (Mat 18:18-20; Eph 4:4-6).
• Fifth, not only does this meal unite us to each other and to Christ now, but it unites us across time with the communion of saints, the great cloud of witnesses that surrounds us (Heb 12:1). Through communion, we are present with Christ and the disciples in the upper room at the last supper. Through communion, we are present at the great heavenly wedding feast that we will eat on the last day (Mat 26:29; Luke 14:15-24).
• Sixth, it remembers the act of Christ's sacrifice on the cross (1Co 11:24-25). It serves as a memorial that reminds us, and a ceremony that re-enacts and re-presents for us, every Sunday, what Christ did on the cross. God knows that we worship with our eyes, hands, smell, and taste, not just with our ears, and therefore Communion is a re-presentation and a representation of Christ's cross.
• Seventh, it proclaims the hope we have in the resurrection and second coming (1Co 11:26). It is a triumphal declaration of the victory of Jesus over all the powers and principalities that stand against God's Love. It is a foretaste of the glory, power, and community that we will have in Christ's presence forever.
• Finally, it is a non-bloody sacrifice in which God sacrifices Himself for us, and we sacrifice ourselves to Him. It is not a repeat, or "do over" of Christ's sacrifice, which is "once and for all" (Heb 9). Rather, it is a re-enactment and re-presentation of Christ's one time sacrifice, in which His eternal sacrifice is made physically present to us right here, right now. In return, we offer the only sacrifice we can give to God: ourselves. We return a sacrifice of our selves, our praise, and our thanks in gratitude for what Christ has done for us (Rom 12:1; Heb 13:15-16).
37 comments:
Hey Nate,
Great post! Us Lutherans have much in common with our Anglican/Episcopalian brothers and sisters in Christ.
Rich
Hey Nate,
I always appreciate it when you post these overviews. I thought I'd add a couple comments for posterity!
First, while I don't subscribe to the ultra-Zwinglian Memorialism view of the Lord's Supper as many in my tradition do, I do feel I should come to its defense a little here - I'm not sure that your "absence" depiction is fair (which perhaps may simply be kind of like Catholics not liking us calling the 16th Century Catholic Reform a "Counter Reformation"...)
"Memorialism" is not understood by its adherents as an "absence" view - that would be a pejorative description used by folks from a differing perspective. The emphasis is on the communal purpose of the meal rather than a supernatural transformation of the elements. I understand what you're saying with the "head stone" description, but I think a better (though still inadequate) metaphor would be a banquet in Christ's honor. The presence of Christ is often (at least in our faith tradition) specifically acknowledged - but rather in the sense that Christ is present in his Body, the Church, as this meal is taken. Personally, I find myself closer to the "spiritual presence" or "real presence" models, because Memorialism can become too anthropocentric - but even that, I believe, is more of a product of the model rather than an inherent characteristic.
Also, I'm not sure I'm tracking with you on your position the 1 Corinthians 11 should be used to defend the bodily presence of Christ in the elements. Contextually that reading doesn't fit. Paul is admonishing the Corinthians for partaking a Supper, which he declares is "not the Lord's Supper" (verse 20) because they are not eating in faith - or more specifically they are not acting in solidarity with the poor and oppressed among them.
Though I remain unconvinced, I have heard and understand the reading that "recognizing the body of the Lord" refers to the real presence in the elements. But given the full scope of the pericope it seems more likely to me that Paul is referring to a mind toward the real Body and real community of Christ which is not being displayed in the actions of the Corinthian Church. Our eating "in a worthy manner" is dependant on our eating in a manner consistent with the ministry and sacrifice of Christ, which was a reconciling event, tearing down the distinction between Jew and Greek, male and female, rich and poor.
Like I said, I understand that isn't your perspective, and that it probably can't be, but I thought I'd give the other side of the "argument" for your readers.
Bret,
Love ya man! A couple of things:
1. This blog was prompted by a discussion with someone who did not take Eucharist with us because they thought we did not believe we believed in the "Real Presence". I wanted to rectify that. As such, I did not do an exegetical paper (which would have to be of some length) to defend the exegetical propositions raised here. I just wanted to get the issues out there in short form. So, cut me slack for the sake of brevity :-)
2. If, however, you do want an exegetical basis for this, I would say go look up any piece of patristic exegesis (The Ancient Christian Commentary on 1Corinthians would be a good place to start). You could also look at any reputable Roman Catholic commentary on this text. They do a good job of showing both the viability and the antiquity of the view that Christ is actually present in the elements of the meal. Indeed, the "Real Presence" view was the ONLY view of the undivided Church. The first time we have anything like a scholarly debate over the subject was the exchange between Radbertus and Ratramnus in the 800's.
3. With that said, my understanding of the main positions on 1Co 11 is that Christ I present in EITHER the body of gathered believers OR Christ is present in the elements. Some (memorialists) argue the former and most others argue the latter.
I would like to cut the Gordian knot and say it is BOTH. There is ample evidence that Christ's Body is really found IN the gathered body of believers "where two or more" are gathered in Christ's Name [cf. 1Co 12, Rom 12, Mat 18]. AND ALSO there is ample evidence that Christ's Body is really found IN the partaking of the elements themselves [cf. 1Co 10, where Paul speaks of our eating the elements as an actual "participation" (metexo, koinoneo) in the body and blood of Christ]. I think this passage [1Co 11] supports BOTH views. When we don't "discern the Body" in the gathered people AND in the partaking of the meal, we sin against the body and blood of the Lord.
4. I chose absence and tomb stone for a reason to make a point. In our Church culture we have a problem with signs (such as words, deeds, meals, sacraments, icons). We treat them as if they are completely disconnected from the Realities which they re-present. Thus, signs that are un-tethered from Reality become the site of endless deconstruction and reconstruction until they become meaningless. I am speaking here of the devaluing of not only sacraments, but the devaluating of theological language, our claims about reality in teaching and preaching, and even the Bible itself.
One of the solutions is to re-tether signs to the Reality which they re-present and represent, so that there is an actual participation with Reality by partaking in the signs. Another solution is to take our signs- our words, our images, our sacraments- seriously.
I think that the absence... er, memorial... interpretation ultimately does just the opposite and contributes to the further devaluing of Christian signs, and endless individualistic reconstruction of basically everything.
You spoke of a memorial dinner. Well, at most memorial dinners (say a retirement) the person being honored is actually there and actually partakes in the meal themselves (both the eating and the fellowship). Even at memorial meals for a dead person, the members of their family (who are connected to the deceased by genetics and nurture), as well as friends and followers (who likewise have an actual tangible, physical connection with the deceased) actually partake in the meal.
Yet, on countless times those of an "absence" persuasion remind their congregations that "this is just a memorial, we do not believe that Christ is really present in the meal". A campus minister who is a friend of mine (from another denomination) recently did this. I think this attitude actually encourages people NOT to take it seriously, and it implicitly says "God does not use physical means to really touch your soul... All of this 'stuff' is devoid of meaning... The only way God really touches you is by your own private individualistic prayer which you have to generate out of your own piety, or else God is not really active in your life."
Thus, I chose the polemical language to make a point. This is not merely a memorial view. It is a declaration of absence. A tombstone hovers over the dead body, disconnected. It can be knocked over, taken away, and even forgotten without disturbing the body beneath it. And, if you look at the Eucharistic practice in most Church traditions which have the strongest doctrine of "memorialism", this analogy holds. Communion is NOT celebrated except once a month, or 2-4 times a year. People actually avoid going to communion Sunday because it is "boring". The clergy in charge often treat it as dreaded chore that takes them away from the preaching or singing they really want to be doing.
So, while I understand your concern about terminology, I feel I need to use it to make a point.
Of course, there is another error that I should probably mention: The equal and opposite error is "magicalism" where the elements are not eaten for our strengthening, but treated as magical relics, paraded around, and misused. The elements are treated like a magical meal that "does its job" regardless of our faith or lack of faith.
I think Eucharistic theology has to balance both the objective side (Christ's real presence in the meal and in those gathered to partake) as well as the subjective side (the need for a living faith to partake the meal in a way that benefits, and does not harm, us).
Nate,
FIRST - allow me to apologize any perceived slight on your recent attempts at brevity!!! Please do not let my thoughtless comments discourage you in your quest! :)
Also, let me remind you that we're mostly in agreement on this issue (I don't consider myself a Memorialist remember?) And perhaps my faith tradition is not a good example of the Memorialist views you're thinking of, because most of what you said in last comment does not describe us at all - though, on the whole we are pretty hard-core Memorialists.
Third, please know that I have read the Patristic interpretations and lots of commentaries, Protestant and Catholic, surrounding this issue, and I would have assumed without you even writing it that you would interpret the Corinthians passage in that way - I understand, respect, honor and applaud what you are saying.
Fourth, I understand your polemic against Memorialism - but I wouldn't be too quick to rush to exclude Christ from the meal in Memorialism. You pointed out that the person being honored at a banquet is usually there. Memorialists would say (I believe Zwingli said something specific about this) that Christ most certainly IS present (and in our tradition it is often said that he is not only present but it is Christ himself who is presiding over the meal)... but his presence is found in the gathering of his Body. Their response to your point of the honored person being present would be that they are usually present and sitting AT the table rather than ON the table. To deny the presence of Christ's body in the elements is not the same as to deny his presence in the event.
Most Memorialists I know would argue vehemently against your friend's suggestion "this is just a memorial, we do not believe that Christ is really present in the meal" without pointedly noting that Christ is present in the gathering.
I can't speak for all Memorialists but most do not view this as a memorial TO Christ, but rather a memorial WITH Christ, and as often as we partake of this meal we do so in remembrance of him.
I (personally) think that the Scriptural evidence is strongest for the both/and view you're speaking of. And I recognize that the Memorialist position is at least partly a reactionary position based initially (16th Century) on the perceived abuses and superstitious dependence on faithless ritual in the medieval Catholic Church...but not on the absence of Christ.
My tradition would say that those who do not place a high value on Communion have missed something fundamental - just as the early reformers who held memorialist positions said.
I hear your point regarding the denominations that don't place much value on communion. Is that a symptom of their memorialist view or is it a symptom of their larger Modernist/Enlightenment framework which denies pretty much everything outside the rational faculties? Aren't those the same groups that see baptism as a mere act of obedience, not tied to salvation or dispensing of grace?
I feel weird arguing for memorialism...I'm almost always on the voice (usually all alone) on the other side.
Ha! I love the quote about Jesus being present AT the table rather than ON the table. Quite pithy.
Something in me resonates with that.
I guess my main point is that Jesus is present:
AT the table [in the gathered Body]
-and-
ON the table [as a meal of grace]
I do not know which memorialists you have been hanging out with, but they are not the ones I know, read, or hang out with.
I guess Church of Christ "memorialists" hold to some kind of quasi-real-presence that the memorialists I know do not.
I am not read up enough on memorialism to know which is the "real" view and which is the aberration. But, from what I am gathering from your post, there are actually two versions of "memorialism" (beware, I am about to make up terminology):
1. "Banquet Memorialism": Christ is not present IN the elements, but He is eating the meal with us at the banquet table. He is present in the fellowship of eating, but not in the matter of the meal. It is His memorial banquet and He is present as the guest of honor.
2. "Cognitive Memorialism": The meal is just a reminder of what Christ did for us, like hanging up a cross on the wall, or putting up a picture of Jesus as you walk into the sanctuary. There is no grace actually exchanged or participated in during the meal. The meal serves as a cognitive reminder- an object lesson- of the historical facts of redemption.
Of course, no matter WHAT view of Eucharist you take, you will by default have an aspect of cognitive memorialism in it. That is because signs are always AT LEAST reminders of the things they signify. But, if signs become ONLY reminders, then they are desperately close to being deconstructed, misused, and neglected.
Nearly all of the memorialists I know fall into the second category of "cognitive memorialism". I have no hesitation tarring THAT view with the brush of "absence" and "tomb stone".
However, what you are speaking of as "banquet memorialism" is much more palatable to me. I certainly would not classify that view as "absence".
Yet, I still think it is deficient because: (a) Christ has ascended and now "fills all things" (Eph 1.23); (b) Because Christ has been historically present in the signs which represent Him (such as the Rock and the Pillar of fire in 1Co 10); (c) Because Paul teaches that partaking of the elements in the meal is a real "participation" (koinoneo, metexo) in the Body and Blood of Christ (cf. 1Co 10). Thus, I believe we have to have some doctrine of Christ's presence ON the table as well as AT the table.
Happy now? I rescind my blanket statement of "absence" upon all memorialists. :-)
I miss our conversations man! There was a blessed day, not too far in the past when this conversation would have been served with a side of migas and ridiculous amounts of Brazilian Minas blend coffee.
I like your terms Banquet and Cognitive Memorialism. I have some guesses as to how and when the distinction entered, but I think we've beaten this horse enough.
I agree wholeheartedly with your reasons for still finding the Banquet Memorialism deficient - I do as well, for pretty much the same reasons.
Greetings. Nice post.
As a former Anglican, now Catholic, I thought I would just offer a clarification of the Catholic understanding of transubstantiation, just in case some readers might misunderstand what you wrote about it. When Catholics declare that the elements cease to be bread and wine, they do not mean that the elements have changed chemically or materially. See my recent blog article "When Bread is Not Bread." Also see Herbert McCabe's article "Eucharistic Change."
Pontificator,
As a brother in Christ, I am going to have to disagree with you as to what the Roman Catholic dogma is about transubstantiation. Thomas Aquinas, speaking in terms of a Neo-Aristotelian metaphysics, taught that the substance of the elements is changed wholly into body and blood, while the accidents (the phenomena we sense by sight, smell, taste, etc.) still appear as bread and wine.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms this by making a differentiation between "substance" and "species". Substance is the "stuff" something is made of, and "species" is the perception of that stuff (species means "kind, sort," originally "appearance, sight, a seeing," related to Latin specere "to look at, to see, behold,"). The Catechism clearly states that the substance changes, but the species appears the same, so that the substance of Christ is contained "under" the species of bread and wine. Thus, all that is left of the bread and wine after consecration is a mere "species" (sight, sense, phenomena, but not the substance).
I have included the relevant paragraphs from the Catechism below for reference.
Now, most folks who disagree with transubstantiation do so because it sounds absurd to them. While I have doubts as to whether transubstantiation is the "mechanism" (method, way, mode) through which Christ is present in the Eucharist, I do not exclude that it COULD be that mechanism.
Thus, I do not reject it out of hand as "absurd". My main problem with it is that it seems to violate the principal of the Incarnation. Jesus was God incarnate hypostatically in two natures: Divine and human. The Divine and human existed together in Christ, so that he was simultaneously 100% Creator and 100% creation. One of the ancient Christological heresies is "docetism" where Christ only appears to be human, but is really only 100% God (He is a kind of phantasm, or ghost, in docetism).
Transubstantiation seems to have the possibility of being Eucharistic docetism, for it says that the created element (bread and wine) is merely an appearance, and the only "real" substance is the Creator's Body and Blood. I personally opt for a "real presence" that maintains BOTH the Creator and the creation substantially present in the sacrament, in a way analogous to the Incarnation.
With that said, transubstantiation does NOT HAVE TO BE docetic, but it could be. And as Aquinas taught it, it seems to be docetic (and I say this as a person who admires St. Thomas Aquinas).
FROM THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
The Catechism speaks of transubstantiation in paragraphs 1373-1377, 1413. The sections relevant to this discussion of the "mode"or "mechanism" of Christ's presence in the Eucharist are as follows (I will ALL CAP sections of particular relevance):
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is UNIQUE. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is TRULY, REALLY, AND SUBSTANTIALLY CONTAINED." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."
1375 It is by THE CONVERSION OF THE BREAD AND WINE INTO CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this CONVERSION. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:
It is not man that causes the things offered to BECOME THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. THIS WORD TRANSFORMS THE THINGS OFFERED.
And St. Ambrose says about this CONVERSION:
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, CHANGE EXISTING THINGS INTO WHAT THEY WERE NOT BEFORE? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine THERE TAKES PLACE A 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 SUBSTANCE OF HIS BLOOD. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called TRANSUBSTANTIATION."
1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207
1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. UNDER THE CONSECRATED SPECIES OF BREAD and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, IS PRESENT IN A TRUE, REAL, AND SUBSTANTIAL MANNER: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).
Man, I hope I didn't open pandora's box for people tweaking your overview...Viva la brevity!!
But I would like to challenge what you said about one other view.
...just kidding, I'm through arguing for the moment!
(by the way, no slight intended against pontificator!)
For anyone who has read this far:
I just read the suggested articles from Pontificator, and they are very good. In fact, I think I agree with them (gotta think some more on it though).
I wish they were true of the "official" Roman interpretation of "transubstantiation". If they were an accurate representation of the Roman Church's view, I would be much more at ease with "transubstantiation".
However, I believe these articles to be a very creative re-interpretation of the Roman view. Perhaps this might become the view SOME DAY for the Roman Church, but alas, right now it is not. The Roman view is best presented in the Catechism using the standard definitions of "substance" and "species" common to most Roman theologians.
Nate, you may find of interest some of my past postings on transubstantiation and the real presence.
I'm afraid you are misinterpreting both the Council of Trent and the Catholic Catechism. When the Catholic Church teaches that the "substance" of the bread is converted into the "substance" of the Body of Christ, she does not mean that the bread has changed empirically: the molecular and chemical structure of the bread remains identical. The atoms and molecules of the bread all belong to what scholastics called the "accidents" of the bread, and Aquinas is insistent that the accidents continue in their integrity after the consecration: "These sacramental species are indeed accidents, but they have the status and the power of substance" (ST 3a.77.5). This is why, says Aquinas, that "if a man were to consume a large quantity of consecrated hosts and wine, he could be kept going for a long time" (77.6).
What changes in the eucharistic consecration is the substance of the bread, i.e., its fundamental identity and reality: the bread becomes the body of Christ.
Catholic theologians today debate the adequacy of the scholastic presentation of transubstantiation, and they may do so because the *dogma* of transubstantiation is not identical to the formulations of any specific theologian or group of theologians. The dogma sets the boundaries, within which diverse reflection and speculation is permitted. The Catholic Church has never, e.g., imposed the Thomistic formulation on Byzantine Catholics. What is dogmatically critical is the assertion that the bread and wine have become, truly and really, the adorable body and blood of Christ. On this dogma Western and Eastern Catholics agree, despite differences in presentation. No Catholic is anathematized because he prefers the formulation of St Gregory of Nyssa or St John Damascene to the formulation of St Thomas Aquinas.
Thus Cardinal Ratzinger:
'What has always mattered to the Church is that a real transformation takes place here. Something genuinely happens in the Eucharist. There is something new there that was not before. Knowing about a transformation is part of the most basic eucharistic faith. Therefore it cannot be the case that the Body of Christ comes to add itself to the bread, as if bread and Body were two similar things that could exist as two “substances,” in the same way, side by side. Whenever the Body of Christ, that is, the risen and bodily Christ, comes, he is greater than the bread, other, not of the same order. The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens. When material things are taken into our body as nourishment, or for that matter whenever any material becomes part of a living organism, it remains the same, and yet as part of a new whole it is itself changed. Something similar happens here. The Lord takes possession of the bread and the wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different.' (God is Near Us [2001], pp. 85-86)
Pontificator,
Yes, I agree with you that there are a great many Catholics- including theologians and perhaps even the Pope- who want to revise the understanding of transubstantiation. And, I both accept and applaud the fact that the Roman Church does not impose a "mode" of transubstantiation on those of the Byzantine Rite.
And, furthermore, I do applaud your blog articles on the subject (I really do: Although I wish you allowed comments on your own blog- I think it would be fun to dialogue there too!). I am glad that Catholic theologians today are debating whether earlier formulations of transubstantiation are adequate. As I have outlined above, I believe there is a need to do this.
All in all, I am MUCH closer to Rome than Geneva or Wittenburg (or Harvard or Yale).
HOWEVER, until I see a revised Catechism or a Papal declaration ex cathedra that states that there is still a substantial presence of bread and wine after consecration, I still believe that the "official" teaching of the Roman Church is as I have outlined above.
Furthermore, I do believe that your talk of atoms and molecules is a bit anachronistic. For at least a half century, we have known that even atoms are not the fundamental building blocks of what we call "matter" (or what I believe St. Thomas would have called "substance"). The fundamental building blocks of matter- at least in the currently accepted orthodoxy of quantum physics (which may change)- is that atoms are made of quarks, which are made of small particles, which are actually vibrating "strings" or "membranes" wrapped up in 11 to 27 different dimensions (cf. "string theory" or "brane theory").
In our current physical theory (which may be as wrong as Aristotle or Aquinas or Newton) the substantial change would occur at the level of these "strings" or "membranes".
Even your quote of Aquinas tends to further my understanding, for Aquinas says "These sacramental species ARE INDEED ACCIDENTS, but they have the status and the power of substance" (ST 3a.77.5).
That is as unsatisfactory as Calvin's view, which was almost the same formulation in the opposite direction: Namely that the elements are indeed the substance of bread and wine, but they are imbued with the virtue, efficacy, or power of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Both are an attempt to get as close to affirming substance as possible without actually affirming substance. Calvin's view is "Eucharistic Virtualism" in that Christ's virtually present (but not substantially present). Yet, Aquinas' view is also "Eucharistic Virtualism" in that bread and wine are virtually present (but not substantially present).
As I outlined the Incarnational principle above, both views fall short of what we see in the Incarnation of Christ.
In the end, I believe you sound like a good Anglican in Roman garb: You are arguing for a more Anglican or Orthodox view of "Real Presence" within the context of Roman Dogma. Your view may eventually "win the day" in the Roman Church (and if it does, GREAT!). But, as of now, I am unconvinced that what you speak of is anything more than a strong minority opinion in the Catholic Church.
Like I said above: Get the Pope to declare it ex cathedra, and I will gladly eat my words!
Nate: "HOWEVER, until I see a revised Catechism or a Papal declaration ex cathedra that states that there is still a substantial presence of bread and wine after consecration, I still believe that the 'official' teaching of the Roman Church is as I have outlined above."
I'm afraid the Catholic Church will never affirm the consubstantialist view you have stated here. Consubstantialism is explicitly declared out of bounds by the Council of Trent. "Substance" answers the simple question "What is it?" Consubstantialism answers: "The substance of the body of Christ *and* the substance of bread." The Catholic Church deems this an inadequate answer, because it undermines the perfection of the eucharistic sacrifice and makes eucharistic adoration an idolatrous act.
Regarding the physics of material objects, I know that my reference to molecules and atoms is "out-of-date," but my point is that no matter how scientists analyze reality, their analyses do not, and cannot by definition, address the eucharistic change. You write: "In our current physical theory (which may be as wrong as Aristotle or Aquinas or Newton) the substantial change would occur at the level of these 'strings' or 'membranes'." This is wrong, I'm afraid. For Aquinas transubstantiation occurs at a deeper, and indeed the deepest, metaphysical level: it occurs at the level of esse, and no scientist can analyze esse, no matter how sophisticated his equipment. Transubstantiation effects a change that does not alter the material or natural constitution of the bread and wine. This kind of change is, of course, inconceivable to us; but that is precisely the point.
Hence the inappropriateness of asserting that the "substance" of the bread and wine remains. The metaphysical category of substance is no longer applicable, because the bread and wine no longer qualify as substances (in the metaphysical sense as defined by scholasticism). The consecrated objects now function metaphysically as the effectual sacramental signs of the body and blood. It's not that the bread and wine have lost anything: they have been elevated from the category of substance to the category of sacramental sign--and a very special and unique sign, for they contain and make present that which they signify. The body and blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist *because* the bread and wine now signify the body and blood. (see Abbot Vonier, *A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist*).
For a discussion of Thomas's theory of transubstantiation and a comparison to Eastern Orthodox views, see Matthew Levering's book *Sacrifice and Community*. I will not say that Levering has convinced me to adopt Aquinas's theory of transubstantiation, but he has persuaded me that the theory is perhaps not as defective as I once thought. One has to be impressed by the willingness of Thomas to break and reconceive the metaphysics of Aristotle as he seeks to assert the real and substantial eucharistic presence of Christ.
But in any case, Aquinas's specific theory of transubstantiation is not Catholic dogma. Catholics are permitted to hold a diverse number of views within the boundaries set by Trent.
I think that part of the confusion for the Church is and has been that we all seem to understand words like "real" in different ways. That's precisely what I'm detecting here.
Perhaps I'm being a simpleton - but Nate and Pontificator both, could you try to explain what you mean by the word "real" and how you believe that word is to be understood dogmatically? To me this question is very much similar to the longstanding debate over whether we should understand "ousia" and "hypostasis" as synonymous or separate - again the question really comes down to how we define "simple" terms.
For instance what did Christ mean when he said, "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink"? It seems (and I admit my perception is limited) that the two of you are not quite speaking the same language yet - you seem to be saying the same thing without agreeing on what's being said.
Pontificator, you seem to be saying that the molecular, or atomic or string-cheeseness of the bread and wine haven't changed but yet they have "really" changed. Thus the body and blood of Christ has completely obliterated the "real" essence of the element and replaced it with his own...but the bread and wine are still bread and wine.
Nate seems to be saying that because the Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine have been replaced by the body and blood - a trans rather than other substantiation - that the "real" essence has changed. Which seems to be the same thing said again - only for Nate if the "real" essence is changed then that means something different than it does for Pontificator.
Nate's main point for the "real" change seems to be the lack of co-existence of substances indicating a "real change" whereas Pontificator's main point seems to be that the physical substance of the elements isn't the "real change". Nate seems to be defending an incarnational view of the Eucharist - the hypostatic union of Christ and Supper, maybe? (I could be mislableing that) while Pontificator seems to be defending an nonsuperstitous assertion that the "bread ain't bread anymore".
While I'm probably wrong in how I'm understanding the nuances of your positions, I still think fundamentally you two are not saying what the other thinks you are saying.
Really.
Bret, I think you are probably be correct. It is particularly easy to talk past one another in the context of internet discussion.
Definitions are critical, especially when one is attempting to talk about transubstantiation within a scholastic framework. Thus, e.g., if one wants to understand what transubstantiation means for Aquinas, one has to get a handle on what "substance" and "accidents" means for him. Aquinas inherited the metaphysical categories of Aristotle, but he also broke them as he tried to explain the eucharistic change. Through a process of "metaphysical ascesis" (Levering), he detached "substance" from what we would call physical reality. Hence his ability to assert a conversion of substance, while acknowledging the enduring physical reality of the elements. It's not that the "bread" and "wine" are only virtually present. They are truly present. They are just as real as they were before the consecration. But it is no longer appropriate to confer upon them the metaphysical status of substance (as "substance" is understood in scholasticism). The oblations have become the effective sacramental signs of the body and blood of Christ. To therefore describe them literally as "bread" and "wine" is to metaphysically misdescribe them.
I do not know if Nate truly disagrees with this formulation of transubstantiation or not. It seems to me that this presentation, which is a fair interpretation of Aquinas, meets Nate's concerns about the enduring physical reality of the bread and wine. It simply doesn't allow him to classify the consecrated elements as "bread" and "wine" under the category of substance.
I am not a philosopher and tend to shy away from rigorous philosophical analysis when talking about the real presence. But here is my practical criterion: the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is "real" if we may legitimately kneel down before the consecrated elements and pray to them.
For all of you:
I feel like I am living in 1560 right now, except we have computers and have interspersed our conversation with quantum physics. I have heard it said that "Reformation concerns no longer concern us". They are obviously off-base.
Bret:
Yes, we should have defined terms before discussion. But, please remember: The purpose of my original article as to summarize for a student, not to give a lecture on Aquina's (or anyone else's) metaphysics. But, since it has come to this...
In my corner as my expert on St. Thomas, I call as a witness Roman Catholic Philosopher and Apologist Peter Kreeft. I do so because (a) He is genuinely and orthodox-ically Roman Catholic; (b) He is a bona fide professional philosopher and Thomist who knows St. Thomas as good as any other English-speaker; (c) He has a habit of defining things clearly, concisely, and without subtle term-switching B.S. I will use his books "Summa of the SUmma" [hereafter SS] and "Catholic Christianity" [hereafter CC] as my primary examples.
According to Kreeft, Aquinas analyzes "Reality" or "Being" in four primary ways (i.e. four dimensions, or categories, of Reality). These four dimensions correspond to the four "causes" of Reality (which he adapted from Aristotle). They are:
1. Ens (opposite: Accident): "Entity, thing, substance, that-which-is" [SS, 24]. "A being that exists in itself rather than in another (as vs. accident)" [SS, 30]. This is a Being's "matter" or "substance". Matter is furthermore defined as "A thing's being which is able to be determined by form... [not confused with visible things such as atoms, because] 'matter' is not of itself observable or even of itself actual." [SS, 27] This corresponds to the "material cause" of a Being.
2. Esse (opposite: Potential): "The act of existing", "the actuality of an essence [essentia], that act by which something IS" [SS, 24-25]. Actuality: The "first act" of a Being is "existence, being, actuality"; The "second act" of a Being is "operation, doing, activity" (i.e. striving to attain one's Potential) [SS, 23-24]. This corresponds to the "efficient cause" of a Being.
3. Essentia (opposite: Accident): "Essence, WHAT a thing is" [SS, 24]. This is the "form" of a Being: "The essential nature of a thing, that which specifies it to be THIS rather than THAT" [SS, 26]. This is the "intelligible notes" or "characteristics" of a Being "as opposed to its existence [esse]" [SS, 25]. This is the "definition" of a thing, which includes it's "genus" [general characteristics that make it part of a category like "bird", "shape", or "human"] as well as its "specific difference" [which make it a "sparrow", "equilateral triangle", or "Bret"]. Without essentia, a Being simply "cannot be conceived" [SS, 25]. Thus, the essential, or "form" of a Being is it's unique shape or inner logic that makes it what it is. It is the essential, or "form" of "chairness" that makes a stack of wood into a chair. It is the "humanness" of a bunch of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen that makes them into a human. This corresponds to the "formal cause" of a Being.
4. Potential (opposite: Actual, or Esse): This refers to the end, goal, or purpose toward which a Real Being is made. All Real Beings are made with a potential to attain a certain end. The question, of course, is whether they do attain that end (which brings in the whole economy of salvation and the fulfillment provided by God's grace in it's manifold forms). This corresponds to the "final cause" of a Being. [This dimension of Reality, however, has little bearing on the subject under discussion... I just added it in for the sake of completeness].
All four of these dimensions of Reality refer to being-in-itself, as opposed to being-as-perceived by others. You could say that these four dimensions refer to a Being's "objective reality" [SS, 24]. Yet, there is lacking one aspect: The subjective reality of a thing as perceived by other subjects. In Thomistic parlance this is:
5. Accident (opposites: Ens and Essentia): "That mode of being which can exist only in another being, as modification or attribute of a substance (thing); e.g. the redness of a rose." "Non-essential, non-substantial" [SS, 23]. This corresponds with the "species" of a Being: "The likeness or representation of an object" [SS, 29].
Pontificator:
OK, enough of the primer on Thomistic metaphysics. Here seems to be the rub:
You seem to be saying that the change is not at the level of ENS but at the level of ESSENTIA. I am saying that the Roman View is that the change is at the level of *both* ENS *and* ESSENTIA.
Here's my reply:
(a) First, I doubt that Thomistic metaphysics is appropriate to categorize what happens in the Eucharist. I am not sure there are enough categories, nor are they of the right type. They do seem to be overly specific in a non-helpful way. I may be wrong about this.
(b) Second, in order to fulfill the Incarnational principal (in Thomistic metaphysics) it would seem that the Eucharist would have to become *BOTH* the ENS of bread and wine *AND* the ENS of Body and Blood, in-formed by the ESSENTIA of the Divine Logos, Jesus Christ.
This however, does not seem to be what you are saying. You seem to be WAIVERING BACK AND FORTH between what ENS is actually present after the consecration. For instance, on one hand you say:
(b.1) "I'm afraid the Catholic Church will never affirm the consubstantialist view you have stated here. Consubstantialism is explicitly declared out of bounds by the Council of Trent... The Catholic Church deems this an inadequate answer, because it undermines the perfection of the eucharistic sacrifice and makes eucharistic adoration an idolatrous act."
Here you are saying that only *one* ENS (or substance) is present post-consecration, and that is only the ENS of Body and Blood. The ENS of bread and wine no longer exists.
(b.2) Later on you say "transubstantiation occurs at a deeper, and indeed the deepest, metaphysical level: it occurs at the level of esse, and no scientist can analyze esse". I think what you actually mean here is ESSENTIA. Scientists- or anyone for that matter- can evaluate a Material Being to determine whether it has ESSE. ESSE is the existence or actuality of a thing, and if it does not have ESSE is simply does not exist (*poof* there is no bread, wine, body, or blood).
So, I will assume that you are speaking of a FORMAL or ESSENTIAL change in the ESSENTIA of bread and wine. I agree that there is no scientific instrument to determine ESSENTIA (or even ENS for that matter). All science can know is ACCIDENTS [appearance, phenomena].
Then you say "The metaphysical category of substance is no longer applicable, because the bread and wine no longer qualify as substances... It's not that the bread and wine have lost anything: they have been elevated from the category of substance to the category of sacramental sign".
So, you are saying that *neither* the ENS [substance] of bread and wine exists *nor* the ENS of Body and Blood exist, but only the ESSENTIA of Body and Blood under the accidents, or species of Bread and Wine. That does more than make Eucharist a "sign", because signs possess ENS. That makes Eucharist a docetic ghost. It makes it a phantasmal appearance of Bread and Wine with no ENS [substance] underneath it.
Furthermore, to say something has the "accidents" of Bread and Wine down to the deepest levels of knowable Reality (so that it even digests as food) does not enhance your position. It merely makes it a more elaborate docetic hoax. It also raises the question of why God would want to be deceptive at such a base level.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it looks, smells, tastes, and even digests like food, its food. This does not preclude it also being indwelt by God, just as the human Jesus was fully God and fully man. But it also is still, in its ENS, bread and wine.
(b.3) Furthermore, you make an odd comment about consubstantiality "undermin[ing] the perfection of the eucharistic sacrifice and mak[ing] eucharistic adoration an idolatrous act".
IF adoring God present in the ENS of Bread and Wine is idolatrous, THEN adoring God present in the ENS of a physical human named Jesus is ALSO idolatrous. God being Incarnate in the real ENS of a physical human does not diminish the Deity, but makes the Deity approachable. In the same way, the consubstantiality of the Eucharist makes Christ approachable in his "body, blood, soul, and divinity".
(c) The more I dive into what you are saying, the more I see it to be "Eucharistic Docetism". The substance of the whole thing is seeming to be evacuated, so that bread ain't bread, wine ain't wine, blood ain't blood, and body ain't body. As a replacement is this phantasmic FORM or ESSENTIA of Christ's Body and Blood that is completely un-tethered to any ENS of any type (whether the matter of Body and Blood, or the matter of Bread and Wine).
In the end, I think Thomas' metaphysic reached it's breaking point here (and that is OK, because all of our metaphysics reaches a breaking point somewhere). Yet, at this point, the metaphysics simply becomes self-contradictory double-talk (and not subtle analysis). It leads one to say in the same breath:
- It's Body and Blood, but not body and blood in any sense that can be understood.
- It's bread and wine, but not bread and wine in any sense that can be understood.
Sorry. I just can't go there. It's too specific and too speculative. It deals with metaphysical problems way above human pay grade (even for the Angelic Doctor himself). It is better left at saying Christ is "really present" in the Eucharistic elements in a mystical way beyond human understanding.
The Roman Church made a big mistake in accepting the overly-mechanistic and overly-specific boundaries of "transubstantiation" as a dogmatic definition. The only way to get out of it is to refuse to share communion with those who disagree with transubstantiation (like she does with the rest of the Western Church), or institute a "don't ask don't tell" policy (like she does with the Byzantine Rite Catholics).
I welcome any more comments on this subject, but I am done. Thanks for the debate. But, I need to go and do some actual ministry.
Please Note:
My word processor does not speak Latin, and on several occassions above changed ESSENTIA to ESSENTIAL.
Sorry for any confusion.
ALSO:
The total word count of this blog is now at 10,000 words.
Congrats guys, we co-authored a small book!
And we've now reached the saturation point for the pedantic nature of the medieval scholastics' arguments - enter Ockham's nominalism...
metaphysical cookie anyone?
Nate: "You seem to be saying that the change is not at the level of ENS but at the level of ESSENTIA. I am saying that the Roman View is that the change is at the level of *both* ENS *and* ESSENTIA."
Nate, I presume that what you call the "Roman View" is in fact the formulation of Thomas Aquinas. Correct? I'm afraid that I do not know enough about Thomist terminology and metaphysics to address the specifics of your post. But having just re-read last week the relevant articles on eucharistic presence in the Summa, I can say that I do not recall Aquinas employing all the distinctions you have here invoked to speak of the eucharistic conversion, though of course I read it in English, not Latin. But I think I'm safe in saying that the two central terms for Aquinas in this discussion are substantia and species. It would be helpful to me if we could stick to these as much as possible to these two terms. I find your use of ens and essentia confusing.
The key sentences in the Summa:
"The complete substance of the bread is converted into the complete substance of Christ's body, and the complete substance of the wine into the complete substance of Christ's blood. Hence this change is not a formal change, but a substantial change. It does not belong to the natural kinds of change, and it can be called by a name proper to itself--'transubstantiation.'" (3a.75.4)
If you wish to debate Thomas's version of transubstantiation, I'm happy to engage you, though I am way out of my depth; but we will need to stick close to the actual text (ST 3a.75-78). I would welcome the opportunity to interact with the specifics of Aquinas's argument. But I should also add that I do not feel at all compelled to defend Thomas on all points.
But I must reiterate: the "Roman View" is not identical to the view of Thomas Aquinas. If the eucharistic dogma was identical to the view of Aquinas, then (a) Catholic theologians would have no choice but to simply regurgitate Aquinas, which they do not do; and (b) the Magisterium would insist that the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome would also have to speak of the eucharistic change in Thomistic terms, which the Magisterium has never done. The Catholic Church does not impose a scholastic system on her theologians, bishops, and priests.
For Catholics, dogma is far more flexible than you seem to realize. Even those of a fairly conservative bent (e.g., Aidan Nichols) acknowledges that the Tridentine eucharistic dogma is to be interpreted in a non-technical, commonsense manner. And as is usually the case when it comes to exegesis of dogma, it is best to always begin with the errors that the dogma seeks to exclude and to understand why those errors are judged to be errors. Between the errors lies the mystery, which our language ultimately cannot adequately state.
You state that you are not convinced that Thomistic metaphysics is adequate to speak of the eucharistic change. Welcome to the club. Lots of Catholic theologians agree with you. The present Pope also seems to agree with you. FWIW, I agree with you. But, alas, I lack the competence to have a strong opinion on the subject. I just know that I prefer the Eastern restraint in this matter.
I have read and re-read your exegesis of my comments. I think you have confused matters by your introduction of ens and essentia. I honestly do not recognize my arguments in your comments, nor do I recognize the teaching of Aquinas. That may be because I do not have a grasp of all the terminology.
The essential point in evaluating Aquinas's formulation is not whether it all makes sense and hangs together. We have to understand why he finds himself compelled to say the things that he does, why he feels compelled to break metaphysical categories in order to speak of the eucharistic change. And the reason is clear: Aquinas is trying to state the eucharistic *mystery* in faithfulness to the promises of Christ.
Has Aquinas created a docetic hoax? I'm not sure how helpful it is to transfer the language of christological heresy to the Eucharist. The eucharistic conversion is different from the hypostatic union in important ways. But I do not think that your charge sticks. It certainly does not stick to the formulation of Herbert McCabe, who was a top-flight scholar of Aquinas and a translator of the Summa, nor does it stick to any other contemporary Catholic theologian that I know. Does it stick to Aquinas? I don't think so. As I have noted, Aquinas was insistent on the continued physical integrity of the consecrated bread and wine. This continued physical integrity is essential precisely so that the elements can function as effectual sacramental signs, i.e., signs that effect what they signify. So what we need to do is to try to understand how Aquinas can affirm both (1) the conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood and (2) the continued physical integrity of the accidents of the bread and wine. What is theologically interesting is that he affirms both simultaneously. Any heretic can affirm one or the other. Catholics insist on affirming both. Aquinas's formulation of transubstantiation may ultimately fail, but the failure is of far greater import than the "success" of one-dimensional formulations.
There's not a lot that I can add to what Fr. Kimel (the Pontificator) has already said--I think he is doing an admirable job of representing the Catholic view of things, and of introducing some clarity to the discussion--but I will make one or two points regarding the metaphysics of substance involved here.
First, it simply is not the case that, for Aquinas or for any other metaphysician in his tradition, the term "substance" means "the 'stuff' something is made of"--nothing could be further from the truth. The "stuff" that something is made of, in Aquinas and other Aristotelians, is always matter, never substance ("substance", in a philosophical context, does not mean the same thing as "matter"; I will have more to say about this below). The term "substance" refers to what something fundamentally is: in any such metaphysics, substances are the primary beings, regardless of what they are "made of". Indeed, some substances (such as God), are not "made of" anything material, they simply are what they are.
This is why it is probably a mistake to introduce the terms ens and esse into this context: these are concepts drawn from Aquinas's very early treatise De ente et essentia, and they are not relevant to his discussion of transubstantiation, which is found principally in the much later Summa Theologiae.
Properly speaking, bread and wine, as such, are not substances at all (in the technical, philosophical sense of the term "substance"), but matter/form compounds. However, since there is such a thing as what-it-is-to-be-bread and what-it-is-to-be-wine, Aquinas treats the elements as like substances in the sense that, after Consecration, they no longer are what they once were, that is, their being-what-they-are has changed, in spite of the fact that they continue to be made out of the same matter. What it is for this particular lump of material stuff to be what it is has gone from "being-bread" to "being-Our-Lord-under-a-Sacramental-sign".
A genuine change has taken place (the Eucharist is not a mere symbol, or re-enactment, or mere memorial, but a making present of an actual event), but it has not been a material change. This is difficult for contemporary materialists (folks who assert that only material entities exist) to accept, since they don't think that there are any such things as immaterial substances or, indeed, that "substance" is a viable term at all unless it refers to matter in some form or other. But this view (materialism) is metaphysically inadequate for Christians, since we believe that there are plenty of entities that exist and are what they are and yet involve no matter of any kind at all (for example, God is such a being).
Howdy all!
Thanks for your kind comments.
A. As regards Thomistic metaphyics:
1. Yes, I do believe we have gotten past the "substance = atoms, quarks, and/or subatomic strings" thing a while back. Substance is indeed the ENS which gives rise to the phenomena, or accidents, which we are able to empirically observe as atoms, quarks, and/or subatomic strings.
Yet, substance, or ENS, is being-in-itself, while the material things we empirically measure are being-as-observed. All of that is clearly implied (if not stated) in my overview of Thomistic metaphysics above. I think we are all in agreement here.
2. The reason I gave the overview above is that I think Thomas' teaching on transubstantiation has to be seen in light of his ENTIRE metaphysical system, not just his narrow use of "substantia" and "species". Despite the depth and profundity of Thomas' system, it really hangs on a few relatively commonsense categorical distinctions. Furthermore, these categorical distinctions run through his mature work.
I am sorry for any confusion my introduction of all the metaphysical terms caused. For the sake of brevity (ha!), I will say this: The same categorical distinctions are applied FROM his metaphysical system TO the concepts he employs in his argument over transubstantiation, so that:
- Substance is equivalent in concept to ENS
- Species is equivalent in concept to ACCIDENTS
- Essentia refers to the Form, Inner-logic, or Metaphysical "shape" of a thing. It's identity or quiddity. The chair-ness that makes a bunch of wood a chair.
3. I do not believe that Thomas' metaphysical categories are able to affirm transubstantion without making the elements a non-real phantasm of bread and wine (yet a phantasm that seems real at the deepest observable level).
I think we may actually agree here. But I am not sure.
B. OK, without use of Thomistic metaphysics, let me say this:
1. I think the use of Christological categories (such as docetism) to describe errors in Eucharistic doctrine is entirely appropriate, since the Eucharist is a direct parallel to the Incarnation.
2. When you say transubstantiation: Do you mean that after consecration the bread and the wine ARE fully and completely present and Real, just as much as unconsecrated bread and wine, except that they now also bear the Real presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ?
If so, I agree with you, no matter what label you use to describe this "conversion" or "consecration".
3. When you say transubstantiation: Do you mean that after consecration the bread and the wine ARE NOT fully and completely present and Real, just as much as unconsecrated bread and wine, because they now bear the Real presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ?
If so, I believe you are falling into Eucharistic Docetism that is just as insufficient as Christological Docetism, for the same reasons.
4. Pontificator: You have said a couple of times that you favor the more mystical view of the Orthodox Church. Good. I applaud that. So do I. And that is really where I would like to leave it.
Because this whole discussion has done something to the Eucharist that I do not think is healthy nor helpful. It has made a "means of grace" into an "epistemic criterion". The Eucharist was given to give us life, to help heal our souls, and to make us partakers of the Divine Nature through Christ.
But what does a debate like this do? It turns Eucharist from a saving act, to a debate over who knows what, when, and how. It is almost as if we put out food for starving people, but we will not allow them to eat it until they know EXACTLY how that food nourishes their bodies.
We eat food and are strengthened long before we have any idea of what a calorie, a vitamin, or an enzyme is. The same is true for the Eucharist (or baptism, or any sacrament for that matter). They are given to us to use, not debate. And they help us and nourish us long before we have any idea how they do that.
I believe Christ is really present- his body, blood, soul, and divinity- in the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist. How he does this, and exactly when, I have little idea. I just know He's in there. It's a mystery. A mystery that saves me. That's where I want to leave it.
Pontificator:
I think I may have reached a solution to the impasse. Anglocatholic theologian Francis Hall wrote in the 1920's about the Anglican doctrine of Real Presence. His Theological Outlines are available online.
If you have time, please read the article in it on Real Presence:
http://disseminary.org/hoopoe/dogma/2005/09/ch_xxviii_q_148_1.html
I think I agree in entirety with what he has said regarding Real Presence. He brings up the same points as I do about Eucharistic analogy to the Incarnation, YET AT THE SAME TIME has a place for a modified doctrine of transubstantiation.
1. Do you agree with what He says? Does his view reflect what you believe to also be the current Roman view of transubstantiation?
2. If you do not agree with what he says, at what point(s) do you disagree?
Using him as a "third party" may help me ascertain whether we are actually disagreeing here.
Nate, I know Francis J. Hall pretty well. I discuss his position, which he calls "real identifiction," in my paper Eating Christ. Hall basically follows the approach advanced in R. I. Wilberforce's book The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, which I strongly commend to you and everyone.
I find Hall's formulation of transubstantiation quite satisfactory, though I don't know what a Catholic Thomist might think of it. Hall's invocation of the Incarnation as analogous to the sacramental union sounds like he is advocating co-presence or consubstantiation; but in his Dogmatic Theology (vol 9) he insists that he is not. He wants to affirm a an ontological transformation that establishes substantial identification. Thus his position would seem to satisfy the criteria of Trent. At least so it appears to me. As I mentioned above, Hall advances a position similar to Wilberforce's. After Wilberforce published his book, the reaction from his fellow Anglicans convinced him that the position he had presented was unacceptable to Anglicans, and so he decided to pope.
A correction to my earlier comment above. In the sentence "But I think I'm safe in saying that the two central terms for Aquinas in this discussion are substantia and species" I meant to write "accidentia" instead of "species."
Nate, I would be very careful about your use of ens, essentia, etc., when discussing Aquinas and transubstantiation. You had better know his metaphysics very well. I have been shot down more than a few times by informed Thomists when making claims about Aquinas when I didn't know my stuff inside and out (which of course I don't). I wish Michael Liccione was available to help us sort this stuff out, but he's out of pocket for the foreseeable future.
Nate, as destructive as the eucharistic controversies have been, they were inevitable because important issues, both theological and devotional, were at stake. Luther's view led him to deny the eucharistic sacrifice. Zwingli and Calvin's views (and here we can include the English Reformers) led them to deny the real identification and thus to repudiate all forms of eucharistic adoration as idolatry. The Catholic Church had to make a clear dogmatic reponse, precisely to protect the apostolic faith.
I must say that, even having read Kreeft for myself (admittedly not very recently), the metaphysics that you describe do not strike me as very closely related to Aquinas's metaphysics. In particular, the following claims seem to me to be extremely problematic as statements of Thomism:
- Substance is equivalent in concept to ENS
- Species is equivalent in concept to ACCIDENTS
- Essentia refers to the Form, Inner-logic, or Metaphysical "shape" of a thing. It's identity or quiddity.
Here are some remarks that I've just sent to Fr. Kimel by private email, but that I think may be useful in this context as well:
With respect to Aquinas's claim that the "whole substance of the bread" and the "whole substance of the wine" become the "substance of" Our Lord's Body and Blood, let me say this.
Aquinas is actually rather ambiguous on the question of what, exactly, is to be included in the expression "whole substance of". There are two expressions involved here, one is just the word "substance", the other is the expression "substance of", and they are not the same thing. A "substance" is, quite simply, a being. A particular human, say, Socrates, is a "substance", God is a "substance", a particular oak tree growing in my back yard is a "substance", etc. Now, in each case we can have knowledge of what kind of thing the particular entity is, though we cannot have knowledge (scientia) of particulars qua particular. This is because knowledge, properly speaking, is always of something universal. Aquinas, following Aristotle (in Metaphysics book Zeta), uses the expression "substance of" to refer to the immanent universal in the particular--in the case of primary substances such as humans, God, etc., what we have knowledge of is the essence, the "what-it-is-for-an-X-to-be-an-instance-of-the-kind-X", where "X" stands for any universal. So the expression "substance of" is usually taken to refer to the essence of a substance, but this is a controversial point in the scholarship on this kind of metaphysics.
So, in the case of a human being, Aquinas holds that all human beings are essentially enmattered forms, that is, what it is to be a human being by definition includes being a certain form inhering in a certain kind of matter. That is why Aquinas holds that our resurrected bodies will be material entities, whatever else may be true of them (and however we are to unpack St. Paul's phrase "spiritual body")--they would have to be, if we are to be literally the same being we were before resurrection.
God, by contrast, is not a material being--he is not a matter/form compound the way we are. So the Second Person is not a material being and, hence, there will be no mention of matter of any kind in any possible definition of "what-it-is-for-the-Son-to-be-the-Son" and, hence, the "substance of" the Son does not include any sort of matter.
Bread and wine are not, according to most versions of this sort of metaphysics, substances at all in the proper sense of the term. Aquinas, following Aristotle, treats them as enmattered forms, and uses the term "substance of" of them homonymously. That is, he acknowledges that there is a certain formal similarity between a loaf of bread and a human being just insofar as there is, in each case, such a thing as "what-it-is-for-this-X-to-be-an-instance-of-X". But because neither bread nor wine contain in themselves a principal of change, they are not, properly speaking, instances of a natural kind and, hence, not "substance" in the technical sense. It is confusing, however, because Aquinas, again following Aristotle, is willing to use the expression "substance of" in talking about them, because of the fact that there does seem to be a matter/form compound of some kind involved in bread and wine and other such "stuffs" (that is, you can't just call any old mixture of flour and water "bread", there is a certain "recipe", as it were, for "being bread", and it includes a certain sort of matter [flour, water, etc.] and a certain set of relationships inhering in the matter).
The key to the doctrine of transubstantiation is the fact that the Son is not a material being, while the bread and wine are not beings at all in the technical sense (remember that, ontologically speaking, "substance" just means "a being"), though they do have form, which Aquinas is willing to call "substance of" in this weaker sense. What happens at the Consecration is that the form of the bread and wine--that is, the causal element in them that is responsible for their being what they are--is destroyed and is replaced by the essence ("substance of" in the stronger, technical sense) of the Second Person. Since the Second Person is present wherever his essence is, the material "manifestation" of him is irrelevant. He can be a human being, as he was at the Incarnation and, in some sense, remains, or he can be a Sacramental Presence, as he is in the Consecrated Elements. Matter and form differ, too, in the fact that matter is perceptible while form is not, and form is intelligible while matter is not. So after Consecration there is no empirically detectable difference in the bread and wine because their matter has not changed at all, only their form has. However, because form is intelligible, we can still have knowledge that the bread and wine are now the Body and Blood.
Consecrated elements can nourish us because the material constituents of bread and wine are what are responsible for nutrition, according to Aquinas, not the form. As it happens, there is a certain kind of extremely attenuated "form" of bread and wine that is still present in the Consecrated Elements: the material constituents continue to be what they are (that is, the particular molecules that the elements are made of continue to be molecules of, well, whatever matter is in flour and water--hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc., just as the human being Jesus of Nazareth is made out of precisely the same material constituents that any other human being is made out of even though the Second Person is Incarnate in him).
In one sense "matter" may have a slightly different connotation for Aquinas than it does for us, because we have an atomic conception of matter while he had an elemental one, but otherwise I would say that the problem word is not "matter" but "substance", because since the rise of materialist empiricism in the 17th century most philosophers and scientists have tended to treat the word "substance" as meaning "material stuff" because, of course, if you are a materialist then you hold that all beings are material entities. Historically this restricted usage has evolved into the principal usage, and it is very difficult to get students in philosophy classes to understand the idea that things like God, soul, mind, etc., can be regarded as "substances".
Dr Carson, I need to push you on one point and invite you to clarify. Is it correct to say that for Aquinas the Son is not a material being? This doesn't sound right. On my (superficial) reading of the Summa, it seems to me that Aquinas is trying to figure out a way to say that we do in fact communicate in the Eucharist with the physical body of Christ (body and blood), and so he says that the whole Christ is present, including all of his accidents and dimensive qualities; but he is present in a special way, i.e., under the mode of substance. For example:
"As a result of the sacramental sign, we have under this sacrament--under the appearances of the bread--not only the flesh, but the whole body of Christ, that is, the bones and nerves and all the rest" (76.1.2).
This sure sounds like Aquinas believed that the risen Christ continues to be a material being, albeit glorified, and that we partake sacramentally of his materiality. Isn't this why he insists that the bread becomes body and wine becomes blood, because bread and wine cannot become uncreated God?
God love you guys!
I remain unconvinced that your view of Transubstantiation, your Church's view, and Aquinas' view are adequate. They all, in slightly different ways, seem to be Eucharistic Docetism.
I am sorry for bringing in Aquinas' metaphysics- although I am not sure whether you are trying to defend his views as your own, or merely trying to clearly state them. I believe his entire metaphysical system to be built upon a dozen or so basic logical distinctions, which he then synthesizes in different ways: Much the same that there are only a few basic values of musical notes, but the re-combination of them is nearly infinite and beautiful.
Thus, I think the categories which underlie the concepts I outlined above are not only relevant, but fundamental, to understanding Thomas' Eucharistic metaphysics: Because his Eucharistic metaphysics are nothing but a re-combination of the same categories.
With that said, I believe that Aquinas (and you?) try very hard to fit the un-reality of the consecrated bread and wine into Aquinas' categories to make them seem real. In this, you wind up mixing categories, and say contradictory double-speak. You invent new words, and mix together categories of form and substance into things like "substance of". But, no matter how many words are created, the double-speak remains unconvincing, and it eventually reveals itself.
For instance:
Scott says: "The form of the bread and wine... is destroyed and is replaced by the essence... of the Second Person." Then he says "As it happens, there is a certain kind of extremely attenuated "form" of bread and wine that is still present in the Consecrated Elements."
So, is the form destroyed or not? If I say "The form/essence of Pontificator is destroyed and replaced by the form/essence of Scott, so that a certain kind of extremely attenuated 'form' of Pontificator is still present". Is that not double-speak? Does Pontificator still exist in a real sense, so that I can say the Pontificator post-destruction is the same person he was before?
If the form is destroyed, it no longer exists. Correct? How does a form continue in a "certain kind" of "extremely attenuated" form if it destroyed? (Notice all of the quoted words which distance one linguistically from affirming any type of true reality).
For another instance:
I asked Pontificator if he agreed with Francis Hall's formulation of "transubstantiation" IN THE ARTICLE I posted. Pontificator says "Yes, I agree... BUT..." and then goes on to list a qualification Hall makes in the 9th volume of his dogmatics. But I didn't ASK about Hall in the dogmatics. I asked about Hall's article in the link I sent you. So, is that agreement, or not? Is that not double-speak?
Specifically, in the article I sent to you Hall affirms the full reality of bread and wine as bread and wine post-consecration. Yet, when you talk about his article in the Dogmatics, you make sure to imply that he DOES NOT affirm the fully reality of bread and wine as bread and wine post-consecration.
So, you disagree with Hall in the article I sent you, or not? Or is it yet again a case of a subtle argument, where you pile words upon words, and say the equivalent of "If you just understood what so-and-so is really saying, you would realize that he is not saying what he seems to be saying, but is in fact saying what I say he is saying."
Finally:
The subtlety and double-speak in this discussion reminds me of all of the discussions I have with non-orthodox revisionist seminarians and professors, who go to extreme lengths to make it SOUND like they are talking about orthodox doctrine, while at the same time undercutting it (especially when you talk to them about the divinity, Lordship, and resurrection of Jesus).
Now, I know that you are obviously orthodox- and in my book not even our disagreement about the Eucharist would classify you otherwise. But, the method and style of your argument has very much the same feel to me. And I don't like it. It feels like a used-car salesman trying to sell me what is obviously a lemon, but he is putting on his best "spin" and using the most technical language he can. Even if you prove your case with all logical certainty to yourself, in the end the argument looses the day.
In an effort at concision, I will leave you with the same question I did a while back:
[EITHER] When you say transubstantiation: Do you mean that after consecration the bread and the wine ARE fully present and completely Real, in the same way unconsecrated bread and wine are present and Real, except that they now also bear the Real presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ?
If so, I agree with you, no matter what label you use to describe this "conversion" or "consecration".
[OR] When you say transubstantiation: Do you mean that after consecration the bread and the wine ARE NOT fully present and completely Real, in the same way unconsecrated bread and wine are present and Real, because they now bear the Real presence of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ?
If so, I believe you are falling into Eucharistic Docetism that is just as insufficient as Christological Docetism, for the same reasons. A very complex hoax in which the bread and wine appear as bread and wine even down to the quarks, and yet are not REALLY bread and wine, is as insufficient as a docetic Jesus who appears to be human down to the quarks, and yet is not REALLY human. That which is not assumed is not healed. That which is not real cannot nourish those who are real.
May Christ fill your life (in whatever way He deems metaphysically appropriate),
Nate
"That which is not assumed is not healed. That which is not real cannot nourish those who are real."
Ahhhh...a Cappadocian...a language I enjoy much more than Thomistic metaphysics!
You guys surpass me in your knowledge of Aquinas and certainly in your knowledge of Catholic dogma. I enjoy scholarly debate - though I've mostly avoided this one because I acknowledge that the fool who keeps his mouth shut doesn't prove it to everyone!
But as I hinted at earlier there is a point where the way of the scholastics begins to break down into something approaching absurdity. While I certainly don't follow Ockham where he went, I can see how his contemporary intellectual scene would have led him to reject the whole paradigm.
Here we have two Catholics, an Anglican and a lowly whatever I am in your eyes - all of whom affirm the power and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As I was saying to Nate earlier today, the Scriptures are strangely silent on what precisely that means and how it works...which it seems should say something to us.
I believe the Eastern Orthodox approach (which I realize is not unique to Orthodoxy) of acknowledging the mystery is very valuable here. It is very hard, if not impossible to continue expounding on metaphysics without continuing to say things which can be interpreted any number of ways.
I don't think - and I could be wrong - that anyone in this conversation would intentionally put forth a position of "Eucharistic docetism" nor do any of us suggest a "mere memorialism".
I've been incredibly impressed at the civil and respectful tone of this exchange - quite unusual for the blog world. I think that speaks volumes of the Christlike heart and intention of those involved.
We all acknowledge the presence of Christ in the meal. This meal instituted by Christ himself, serves (according to Scripture) to unite the Body of Christ in his remembrance and proclaim his death until he returns. (Now I acknowledge that our Catholic brothers and sisters cannot share this meal with us, for these or any other reasons...but that is another conversation for another time.)
But with all that said, I have to say this conversation has convinced me of really only one thing - while there are things too lofty for me to attain even in the midst of this truth, "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory" 1 Tim 3:16.
That is the truth I celebrate in Eucharist; that is the Lord that is present in some way when we do so.
Nate, I've done my best for you. If it sounds like double-speak, well ... there's nothing more for me to say. Ciao.
Pontificator,
THANK YOU for doing your best. And BLESS YOU for being so kind in your argumentation.
Here is what you did for me: You CONVINCED me, that within your confessional bounds, thoughtful Catholics are trying to affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and the Reality of God really using material means to convey that Presence to us in a mystical way.
In my reading of this- which is doubtlessly flawed- you are coming SO CLOSE to affirming the Reality of both sides of the equation- both the Reality of the Bread and Wine, and the Reality of the Body and Blood.
But, in my reading, you just miss the full Reality of half of the equation- the "sign" part, the "matter" part, the "bread and wine" part. You try, but you just miss it.
Thus, in my book you just miss a fully sufficient definition of the sacrament.
WITH THAT SAID: I believe the view you espouse is drastically MORE SUFFICIENT than views which deny the Divine side of the sacrament altogether (Banquet Memorialism, Cognitive Memorialism, Calvinistic Virtualism, Receptionism, etc.). If I am going to "fall off" on one side of the sacrament or the other, I would rather- with you- fall off onto the "Divine side" rather than the "Sign side".
I also believe your view to be drastically MORE SUFFICIENT than views which affirm a crude magicalism, or crude equality of physical matter with the substance of Divinity. It is also more sufficient than most formulations of Lutheran consubstantiation I have read.
Although I obviously have deep sympathies for "consubstantation", most formulations of that doctrine come off sounding something like Eucharistic Nestorianism (where the two natures exist side by side, but are really separate at a deep level) or Eucharistic Adoptionism (where God comes to be present in the host, but not in a permanent, truly participatory type of way).
In fact, following Francis Hall, I would probably take the whole catalogue of Christological errors and apply them to the Eucharist. I believe they are helpful guides to steer us toward a "Chalcedonian Eucharistic Doctrine".
Following Chalcedon's definition to protect the Mystery of the Incarnation, I would PROPOSE the following "Chalcedonian Eucharistic Definition" to protect the boundaries of the Eucharistic Mystery on four "sides":
1. Eucharist is really, truly, and fully the Presence of Christ: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
2. Eucharist is really, truly, and fully the created elements of Bread and Wine.
3. These two Realities are truly joined, through the consecration, so that as long as the Bread and Wine last they cannot be separated.
4. These two Realities cannot be mixed, or confused, or subsumed into each other.
The first boundary protects us from "Eucharistic Arianism", where the Divine Christ is not really present in the sacrament, but it is merely a sign pointing to Christ. This is, of course, a protection from mere Memorialism.
The second boundary protects us from "Eucharistic Docetism" where the bread and wine merely appear to be real (even to the deepest levels of observation), but are not real. It also protects us from "Eucharistic Apollinarianism" where some part of the Reality of the Bread and Wine is destroyed and replaced by the Divine.
The third boundary protects us from both "Eucharistic Nestorianism" (where the two natures exist side by side, but are really separate at a deep level) and "Eucharistic Adoptionism" (where God comes to be present in the host, but not in a permanent, truly participatory type of way).
The fourth boundary protects us from "Eucharistic Monophysitism" (or Eutychianism) where the Divine nature of the Eucharist subsumes the created nature and obliterates it (another error that Transubstantiation could creep into). It also protects the Eucharist from becoming some type of mixed substance- a tertium quid- that is really neither creation nor Creator. It finally protects us from a crude magicalism by reminding us that the "sign" aspect has not been obliterated, so that the meal must simultaneously be treated as the sign (bread and wine) and that which it signifies and inheres with (the Divine Christ).
That, for your criticism, is my version of a "fully sufficient" definition to protect the Mystery of the Eucharist. I do not, however, have a metaphysical theory of HOW this is so. I have a hunch based on dimensionality and some of the oddities that quantum physics hints about the nature of Reality. And, if anything like my hunch is right, it would work within BOTH the "Chalcedonian" definition provided above AND Catholic formulations of transubstantiation.
Perhaps, after more research, so I do not look like an idiot, I will write my quantum hunch some day. But even if I do write it some day, it would still be inferior in quality and necessity to the definition above. It would still be a mere hunch at HOW this is so. The important thing, however, is THAT it is so.
The important thing is THAT it IS a real means of grace through which the Risen Christ REALLY becomes present and nourishes us with His grace so that we grow into all the fullness of Christ.
And, it is this LAST POINT THAT WE AGREE ON- ALL OF US. We disagree on HOW and what terminology is sufficient to describe the Mystery. But we AGREE on what is most important. And that is why you (and Scott, and Brett, and Luthsem) are all BROTHERS IN CHRIST.
Bret,
Yep, Cappadocian language is more sufficient in my book. Theological language is a strange mix of logic and poetry, rational and mystical. I think scholasticism- of all types, not just Roman- falls off into the logic side too much.
I wonder- in light of this conversation- if it was not a coincidence that St. Thomas Aquinas quit writing after a mystical experience at the Eucharist, after which he said "All I have written in but straw". A lot of people use this to dismiss Thomas completely (Well, he realized his work was worthless- don't you???). But, I see it as precisely the opposite.
Thomas- using his incredible off-the-scales genius, and the finest education, science, and philosophy available- took us to the absolute limits of human understanding and rational coherence. He took us to the VERY TOP of the mountain of transfiguration and dropped us off up there. Up there, we could see the stars. We could see the world far below, in all its created glory. St. Thomas is the BEST of tour guides.
But, there is one thing that Thomas can't do: He can't deliver to us the Shenkiniah Glory of the Transfigured Christ, robed in Glory and Majesty, with a beauty that outshines the Sun. He can take us to the top of the mountain, but we still have to WAIT on God's glory to descend. Thomas saw the glory, a glory that far eclipsed all of his work as a "tour guide", but also fulfilled his work as a "tour guide".
His efforts to bring us to the top of the mountain are JUST AS WORTHWHILE as the work of Peter and John to climb with Jesus to the top of the mount of transfiguration. Worthwhile in the same way, for the same reason. Worthwhile, and indispensible. Because, just as God made man to climb with his muscles, He also made man to climb with His mind, with His heart, and with His soul (cf. "Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength" Mat 22.37-40). Without striving with all our human effort, we are not ready to appreciate the fullness of God's grace and glory.
Without Thomas' striving and work, he would not have been in the place to fully appreciate the glory revealed to Him. And, for those of us wired like St. Thomas, we need to mentally exert ourselves to the full extent to be ready for the Mystical glory of God.
As I have pointed out before, I think the Eucharist in particular slammed Thomas up against the wall of His metaphysical system and pushed His concepts to the breaking point. But, it was only at that point that He was ready for the Glory. And, I believe, it is no mistake that the Glory occurred in the context of Eucharist.
May we all be slammed with the Glory like St. Thomas was!
St. Thomas, pray for all of us who feel called to strive hard to understand the deep things of the Risen Christ. Pray that the Lord would pour out His Spirit of wisdom upon our feeble minds, that we would understand in such a way as to unite Christ's Divided Body, and spur us on to complete His Mission in the world. And pray that at the completion of our striving, we would be slammed with all the fullness of Glory of the Risen Christ, just as you were, that we may know, love, and follow Jesus, just as you do. Amen+
Please post further comments on this new blog article:
http://natebostian.blogspot.com/2008/04/proposal-for-chalcedonian-view-of.html
It combines my last two comments, and creates a new start for the discussion.
Wow you guys use lots of words!
Next time for your sake, we will just point and grunt.
Post a Comment