Lutheranism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy, in their different ways, all stress the “Real Presence.” But a basic problem with the “Real Presence” is the way in which that dogma lays an ax to the root of the Incarnation–as well as the Resurrection. It’s a fundamentally anti-Incarnational view of the Eucharist.
Jesus had a body. A real body. A physical body. This is clear from the Gospels. He had a visible, tangible body. A body of normal height and weight, comparable to other human beings with whom he interacted.
This was true before his Resurrection, and this was equally true after his Resurrection. Indeed, both Luke (Lk 24) and John (Jn 20-21) go out of their way to accentuate the visible, tangible character of Christ’s glorified body. Although Christ could come and go at will, yet when he was present, he was present in a locally tangible, definable fashion. Locality, not ubiquity. His glorified body had empirical properties.
That’s essential to the Lukan theology of the Resurrection as well as the Johannine theology of the Resurrection. The body of the Risen Christ is something which it was possible for observers to see and feel.
But in order to defend the “Real Presence” in relation to the communion elements, one has to radically redefine a body. And, in the process, one has to radically redefine, both the Incarnation and the Resurrection.
The sacramental realist eviscerates the Incarnation and the Resurrection for the sake of his Eucharistic dogma. In order to save appearances, the corporality of the body is shorn of its corporal properties.
In effect, the sacramental realist reduces the body of Christ to an astral body or subtle matter. He must purchase a “high” sacramentology at the cost of a low Christology.
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique.... 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."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1374.htm
So, for Catholics, it's not Christ's real body that's really there -- the one you mentioned that's now at the Right Hand of the Father, it's just a "sacramental" (from the word mysterium or "secret") presence that's really there. In the end, it's just as symbolic as Zwingli's memorial presence. At least he was honest about it.
Jesus is the one who said, "this is my body, this is my blood."
ReplyDeleteHe never commanded us to do anything (the Supper in this case)where He would not actually be in it...for us.
To not believe this fact is to have a low Christology.
The Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is far beyond anything Jesus said though. And as Steve said here, to believe Transubstantiation is (a) to believe something "radically redefined" an (b) just to ignore what the Scriptures say about Christ's glorified body, where he "sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified."
ReplyDeleteHe is not leaving that spot at the right hand of God, no matter how much philosophical wrangling is done to explain what the "mystery" means.
theoldadam said:
ReplyDelete(see above)
Me:
Jesus is the one who said, "...I am the true vine...Abide in me..."
He never commanded us to do anything (the Supper in this case)where He would not actually be in it...for us.
To not believe this fact is to have a low Christology.
THEOLDADAM SAID:
ReplyDelete"Jesus is the one who said, 'this is my body, this is my blood.'"
You keep trotting out this verse as if folks like me have never seen it before, and would be speechless to present a non-Lutheran interpretation. Are you really that clueless?
Some Protestant commenters argue that the Roman dogma of Transubstantiation fulfills the requirement of 1 John 4:3 of the Antichrist's denial that Christ has truly "come in the flesh".
ReplyDeleteSaying that this piece of bread that has been magically treated by a Roman priest is Jesus Christ Himself just as much and certainly as that man who walked in Galilee 2,000 years ago - it does make mockery of the one true Incarnation.
Early Protestant apologists also saw similarity between the way Eutychian heretics denied the true humanity of Christ (His humanity being only an illusion of senses according to them) and the Romanist denial of the reality of material bread in the Eucharist (bread being only an illusion of senses, according to Rome).
"So, for Catholics, it's not Christ's real body that's really there -- the one you mentioned that's now at the Right Hand of the Father, it's just a "sacramental" (from the word mysterium or "secret") presence that's really there. In the end, it's just as symbolic as Zwingli's memorial presence. At least he was honest about it."
ReplyDeleteJohn Bugay, I would much like to see your more detailed treatment of this topic - sounds like you're onto something good. :)
what if someone were to say that it is in fact, Christ's divine nature - which would be omnipresent - that presides in the eucharist?
ReplyDeleteHis divine nature isn't a body. It isn't bloody or corporeal.
ReplyDeletePlus, Mathetes, that's not what the RCC says at any rate. "'This is My Body'!", they yell over and over. It's the body and blood of Christ.
ReplyDelete