Do you believe in Transubstantiation? (see link)

[°Leprechaun]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

[°Leprechaun]

I would be interested in hearing why this is such a key part of Roman Catholic Theology and what the case for it is.

It is certainly an interesting idea, although I don't believe it.

[°Leprechaun]

If you have two hours and are interested in a friendly debate on this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tzS3GSPq7s

If you already know about the pros and cons listening to this may not be something that you would want to do.

I find it interesting in understanding the topic.

If you want a shorter version you could, for example, just read John 6.

Some of his disciples no longer followed Jesus (see John 6:66)

[jojoju1998]

I would be interested in hearing why this is such a key part of Roman Catholic Theology and what the case for it is.

It is certainly an interesting idea, although I don't believe it.

It's basically a overly complicated explanation for the Eucharist. Catholics believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Eastern Orthodox have the same concept, but they don't call it Transubstantion, because they feel like they don't need to.

Indeed, except for the Baptist strand of Christianity, most Christian denominations teach that the eucharist is at least something.

[Skill and Chance]

Historically, I favored a purely symbolic interpretation of Communion, in an "obviously there aren't literally Pilgrims and Patuxet Indians present at your Thanksgiving dinner, but we still eat it in remembrance of them" kind of way. 

However, I am increasingly questioning this. This interpretation is both non-literal and almost entirely absent from pre-1500 AD Christian literature.  So 1500 years of tradition favored a more literal interpretation without significant regional variation.  That seems like it should really matter. 

I would say I now take a more intermediate high church Protestant view that something miraculous/metaphysical must be happening, but how exactly it happens and how literal it is meant remains mysterious.  I am still not sure about defining it in as much detail or reading it quite as literally as the Orthodox or especially Catholics do.   

[°Leprechaun]

Interesting, it's clearly taught in the Bible, has been the orthodox view for 2000 years and only one person here believes it.

[RINO Tom]

Interesting, it's clearly taught in the Bible, has been the orthodox view for 2000 years and only one person here believes it.

The Bible doesn’t “clearly teach” transubstantiation.  It clearly teaches (unless you’re an Anabaptist/Baptist) that what we receive in communion is “the body and blood” of Christ.  The rest is up to interpretation.  As I understand it, transubstantiation is Rome’s hypothesis for how Aristotelian metaphysical ideas can explain how this happens.  Lutherans largely leave it up to a mystery, saying (for example) that the bread can be just bread AND the body of Christ at the same time in a way we cannot understand (just as the Trinity works).  I believe Anglicans/Episcopalians have more or less the Lutheran view, but I am not sure.  My novice perception is that Methodists have a watered down version of the Anglican view, as they descended from that tradition.  Reformed Christians (including Presbyterians and Congregationalists) believe that Christ is spiritually present but that the bread and wine are still mostly just bread and wine, I believe.  Then, of course, Anabaptists, Baptists and those who adopted their theologies on this abandoned the pretty universally held view of SOME type of presence and teach that it’s just symbolic.

Transubstantiation is just a Catholic teaching, and even Catholics would admit it’s not plainly spelled out in Scripture.

[°Leprechaun]

Interesting, it's clearly taught in the Bible, has been the orthodox view for 2000 years and only one person here believes it.

The Bible doesn’t “clearly teach” transubstantiation.  It clearly teaches (unless you’re an Anabaptist/Baptist) that what we receive in communion is “the body and blood” of Christ.  The rest is up to interpretation.  As I understand it, transubstantiation is Rome’s hypothesis for how Aristotelian metaphysical ideas can explain how this happens.  Lutherans largely leave it up to a mystery, saying (for example) that the bread can be just bread AND the body of Christ at the same time in a way we cannot understand (just as the Trinity works).  I believe Anglicans/Episcopalians have more or less the Lutheran view, but I am not sure.  My novice perception is that Methodists have a watered down version of the Anglican view, as they descended from that tradition.  Reformed Christians (including Presbyterians and Congregationalists) believe that Christ is spiritually present but that the bread and wine are still mostly just bread and wine, I believe.  Then, of course, Anabaptists, Baptists and those who adopted their theologies on this abandoned the pretty universally held view of SOME type of presence and teach that it’s just symbolic.

Transubstantiation is just a Catholic teaching, and even Catholics would admit it’s not plainly spelled out in Scripture.

According to Matt Fradd you can't be a Catholic if you don't believe in the transubstantiation. Anyway, that is an interesting contribution to the discussion, thanks.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Orthodox can talk about "transubstantiation" occurring, as the Confession of Dositheus does, but we also might say that it does not if one follows the same logic as RINO Tom, identifying it particularly as a confirmation of Aristotelian metaphysics.

     In the Orthodox view it is necessary that the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ because God enters into us and we partake of His Nature, gaining life because the Blood of He who has Life enters us. Along those lines I find it curious that Roman Catholics affirm transubstantiation but also permit eating animal blood, since the life is in the blood and the ancients believed that having animal life enter you is not spiritually healthy.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

     Orthodox can talk about "transubstantiation" occurring, as the Confession of Dositheus does, but we also might say that it does not if one follows the same logic as RINO Tom, identifying it particularly as a confirmation of Aristotelian metaphysics.

     In the Orthodox view it is necessary that the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ because God enters into us and we partake of His Nature, gaining life because the Blood of He who has Life enters us. Along those lines I find it curious that Roman Catholics affirm transubstantiation but also permit eating animal blood, since the life is in the blood and the ancients believed that having animal life enter you is not spiritually healthy.

Can you elaborate on that last point? I would assume that by "the ancients" you are not referring to the early Christian Church, and if I understand correctly, what you're implying is that veganism would be a necessity to avoid having "animal life enter you." I am also not familiar with any Christian tradition that applies similar logic, of Christ being in His blood, to animal life also being in animal blood.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Orthodox can talk about "transubstantiation" occurring, as the Confession of Dositheus does, but we also might say that it does not if one follows the same logic as RINO Tom, identifying it particularly as a confirmation of Aristotelian metaphysics.

     In the Orthodox view it is necessary that the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Christ because God enters into us and we partake of His Nature, gaining life because the Blood of He who has Life enters us. Along those lines I find it curious that Roman Catholics affirm transubstantiation but also permit eating animal blood, since the life is in the blood and the ancients believed that having animal life enter you is not spiritually healthy.

Can you elaborate on that last point? I would assume that by "the ancients" you are not referring to the early Christian Church, and if I understand correctly, what you're implying is that veganism would be a necessity to avoid having "animal life enter you." I am also not familiar with any Christian tradition that applies similar logic, of Christ being in His blood, to animal life also being in animal blood.

     Early Christians, but also Mosaic and Noahide traditions forbade eating animal blood (and they most certainly weren't vegan), and the Scriptures there make an explicit link of the animal's life being in the blood (Lev. 17:14 and Gen. 9:4, respectively). There are numerous butchering methods available to prepare meat that do not keep the blood in the animal.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

No (Protestant)

I lean towards the Baptist view, but I'll admit that this is what I was taught when I started going to church on my own volition, and I haven't done an in depth study of it.  But, based on my understanding, the memory/representation is what matters.  So, I view debates like whether to use wine or grape juice as unnecessary because it's just a representation, not the actual literal body and blood of Christ.

[Skill and Chance]

No (Protestant)

I lean towards the Baptist view, but I'll admit that this is what I was taught when I started going to church on my own volition, and I haven't done an in depth study of it.  But, based on my understanding, the memory/representation is what matters.  So, I view debates like whether to use wine or grape juice as unnecessary because it's just a representation, not the actual literal body and blood of Christ.

I was all in on that position growing up (the "Thanksgiving dinner" view), and TBH I still find it pretty compelling.  Given my scientific background, I think there is a very compelling argument that we should avoid reading any additional miracles into ambiguous text.  This is why I also have some trouble with the extra Catholic/Orthodox doctrines about Mary.  I also believe we must also be careful about taking this to the other extreme ("Christmas celebrations aren't in the Bible, you tree-worshiping pagan!").

However, it is undeniably a step out from a very long tradition with very little to support a purely symbolic interpretation pre-1500.  Now, perhaps that is a natural shift as that is right around the time our knowledge of physics and chemistry began to greatly expand.  The Bible is not a math or physics text after all.  Christ spoke directly to ancient audiences who were mostly illiterate and had a concept of numbers that was basically 1 through 10 and then indescribably many.  There has undoubtedly been a mindset shift over the centuries.

But spiritual presence does not require a change in physics or chemistry.  There is some evidence of a non-physical (but still mystical) interpretation in the Assyrian Church of the East, which was also notably skeptical of the extra Mary miracles in early tradition and notably hesitant about icons.  We even see Catholic churches in Scandinavia substituting locally available white wine for red wine, which seems a notable deviation from a message that it's literally blood, especially when facing a mostly illiterate audience.

Still, I can't read John 6 without an implication that something supernatural is going on.  Christ never deviates from direct, literal statements even as the crowd gets progressively more and more weirded out.  Perhaps that reaction has to do with the intricacies of Jewish law, but it stands out to me that no clarification or limiting statement is made.  However, Didache, with the oldest record of a communion ceremony outside of the Bible, reads surprisingly relaxed and non-literal to me.  The language emphasizes bringing the church together in remembrance of Christ, not Communion as a mechanism for forgiveness of sins.  As I have mentioned before, Didache seems like the early church document most favorable to Baptist/non-denominational Protestant interpretations.

I see just enough there to conclude that something mystical is going on, but not to define it or elaborate on it.  This is why I have shifted toward a more intermediate spiritual presence view. 

[Georg Ebner]

Yes & No.
Yes, HE becomes flesh&blood, but not in the sense the Occident has more and more seen it in the last 800-1000 years out of its ARISTOTELism.
The ARISTOTELian conCept of making our empirical world - this tohuwabohu - the "rational" base of philoSophy, from which one can conclude on GOD, is totally wrong. There exists noThing supranatural as there exists noThing natural.
Instead, in this tohuwabohu there appears from the very beginning The Logos, who is in, but not from this world: Every beautiful rose or woMan is already a "transSubstantiation" (and not just a "transFormation") by being the epiPhany of The Wisdom. The Demiurge becomes flesh in her. (This is meant by "He came unto his own".) To ho en on. This backGround was topped by the fact, that HE became once flesh (instead of just being in it) - the only fusion of axioLogy and ontology. From this it was quite consequential to become flesh in perManence.
Every new step has obviously been absolutely absurd for human mind - but so is our entire exIstence! Credo, quia absurdum.