Bosco Peters has posted an "essential" reading explanation of the meaning of "substance" in relation to "Transubstantiation", here.
Comments on his post should be made at his blog, not here. But I am glad to link to his post as clarity of thought on "substance" as well as on "real presence" can be lacking in discussion and debate on these matters in Anglican circles (and, as Bosco points out, Catholic circles also). The tendency is to fall prey to simplicity of thought in the face of a great mystery.
A few thoughts of my own:
- any account of the significance of the bread and wine of communion must account well for the "is" in "This is my body ... this is my blood" and do so with reference to the Synoptic and 1 Corinthians 11 accounts of the last supper, John 6 and the participatory language in 1 Corinthians 10. Broadly speaking "real presence" does this in a way which "memorialism" (all we are doing is remembering that Jesus died for us) or "representationism" (the bread represents the body of Christ etc) does not.
- there are "both/ands" involved in this mystery: Jesus is really present and (as Bosco notes) the bread and the wine are symbols - powerful symbols - and "representations" (in the sense of re-presenting to us the body and blood of Christ" and our participation matters (as those present at communion (with our bodies; together being "the body of Christ"), as those giving thanks in our hearts for what Jesus has done for us, as those eating the bread of communion and drinking the wine of communion by faith receiving these elements as the body and blood of Jesus).
9 comments:
Gosh you're right to focus on that "is" ("this *is* my body"), Peter. So much heavy theological traffic has crossed over that "is".
Why do Christians literalize that "is" so much - even more so than the seven days of creation?
Jesus was a master of symbols and symbolic communication, often using parables and symbolic acts (e.g. casting money lenders out of the temple, riding into Jerusalem upon a donkey) to richly, imaginatively communicate his message. Why is the "is" not part of that world of rich, metaphorical symbolism?
In only one Gospel (Luke) is there an instruction to repeat this act - "do this to remember me" - and it is still far from certain that Jesus is referring to an actual ritual. Do what to remember him? Break bread? Share our lives with each other? Give our life and love so that others may live and come to love, too? Most of his teaching on religious practice eschews outer rituals and public displays and focusses on inner meaning and the quality of one's heart.
But the Church takes it even further to literally claim, in full throttled Catholic form, that one's salvation is dependent on participating in this outward act, and that only special church-authorized religious experts can say the necessary transformative prayers. If a well meaning lay person tries, the magic simply doesn't happen. Producing....a sort of salvation monopoly that puts the likes of Foodstuffs to shame. But this is reprehensible, theologically, surely.
If you're truly called to such a practice, sure. But Protestants have been right to expose its shaky foundations and literalizing claims to truth.
My husband knew an Anglican vicar in the Hutt Valley in the 1950’s who wisely said he didn’t believe in the Catholic doctrine but was certainly not going to say Christ is *not* present in the bread and wine. It’s Mystery!
And I believe Elizabeth I, as a young woman, saved her life in the religious disputes of the time, by a clever rhyme:
“He took the bread and brake it
And what he did and make it,
I believe and take it.”
Sorry, last line of rhyme should read:
‘I do eat and take it’.
Not believing but acting…
(I don’t know how to edit.)
On the other hand: aren't we all made out of the same substance, which is Christ, which indeed s the light and life of the world (see John's prologue)? In this view, transubstantiation is confirming in bread and wine what all created reality - all created beings - truly are. Only it is doing a bit more than that of course - its claims for exclusivism of Christ, and for the power to consecrate and admit/bar others being morally and theologically reprehensible as above.
As I have come to understand it the Eucharist was practised by Christian’s since and after the last supper you mentioned above Mark where Jesus said “do this to remember me”. It was also referred to many other times in the New Testament afterwards as being practiced by Christian’s although coined in phrases such as ‘giving thanks’ in the ‘breaking of the bread’.
I have only just discovered this - it was normal for Jewish families during Shabbat (and might still be), for the host of the meal to raise the bread before breaking and to give thanks to God. And the bread of presence was in the temple representing the face of God towards His people, representing his provision and covenant with them.
Given Jesus hosted and broke the bread on Passover, and uttered what he did on the third cup of wine representing redemption, while perhaps not clear to us not from a Jewish context - by saying this is my body broken for you; this is my blood poured out for you Jesus is alluding to what the disciples would comprehend, the bread of the covenant is now to be in the form of his body, and the blood sprinkled on the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins in the temple is now to be his blood (life) poured out. In essence - this practice of the Jews of remembering the Passover (being delivered out of Egypt) is to become a remembering of Jesus the one who delivered all men out of slavery to sin.
In the sense above the ‘remembering’ is akin to how Jews re-enact the Passover or Shabbat - the doing of it is a bringing to mind, a re-living if you like a re-living of that moment of Jesus’s death in order to honour, acknowledge and vicariously participate (e.g. my body broken for you).
Like you Mark I get perplexed when salvation is indexed to receiving or being able to physically receive communion blessed by a priest. I don’t think this was ever endorsed scripturally, rather to me it is an on-going sacrament to be practiced in the church body which keeps Christ’s body on earth continually remembering what He did in His death and the New Covenant he ushered in.
In terms of transubstantiation I did have to smile at Bosco’s use of the word species in his article - a sure sign of a Scientific mind!
Personally I do not see communion as literally the body and blood of Jesus, as an article I read pointed out Jesus himself said these words before he was crucified. I can relate though to the bread and wine as being representative in a participatory spiritual way of being, joined to Jesus through his death, and therefore the taking of communion a reminder of this is where I stand - Jesus who lives in me, providing life and delivering from death.
A few thoughts, prompted by comments above:
- acknowledged are those moments/periods in church history when communion has become divisive/dictatorial in a manner not supported by any NT teaching;
- nevertheless, Christian desire is for more of Jesus, a closer walk with Jesus, to receive all that Jesus has to give - this includes Jesus' teaching, Jesus' presence with us, and Jesus' life within us, and thus a Christian approach to communion is to reflect on the importance (or, for those who do not think it so important, unimportance) of participation in communion/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Mass/Eucharist, and, concimitantly, what Jesus through the gospels and Jesus through that handed onto Paul teaches us about communion and its significance as a "something" which enhances our lives as disciples, as church;
- further, Jesus himself in John 6 connects feeding on him as the bread of life with belief in him which implies the bread and wine of communion have effect (re nurture) in those who believe and not in those who do not believe - not least is this so because what is promised via communion is deepening of our life in Christ (a life begun through belief in Christ) and not a general blessing on life in the ordinary run of being human.
Post a Comment