Hmm.  Jesus did say "this is the bread of my body" while he was there in physical presence with his disciples, which would make it very hard for them to be eating him while He was sitting at the table.  On the other hand, I don't think it's a huge issue.  If, as you say, it's not chemically or physically Christ's body or blood, there really isn't that much of a distinction between it being spiritual and being spiritually symbolic.

I don't believe in transubstantiation. However, I haven't really thought much about it. I always viewed it as symbolic. Maybe I should research it some more, although, I don't think it's a very hugely important issue.

"Catholic siblings, do you have any struggles with transubstantiation?"

It is a miracle, just like faith is a miracle.  I accept transubstantiation as a reality just like the sun coming up in the morning.  Here, Jesus is not asking us to hold back, but wants us to be carried away, caught up with Him, just like the diciples were.


"Christ is always present with us."

Yes.  With the Eucharist Jesus is present in us (I don't wish to say that there is no other way in which Jesus could be in us, but, here, He's in us in a special way).  We allow space in our heart for Jesus.   Finally, communion -- the communion of believers (what a beautiful idea).  Every day I see people putting up walls, but here in the Eucharist we break down those walls...

If we were literally eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood, we would be cannibalists. And if Jesus was speaking literally in John 6, then the disciples would have went up to Jesus and started to bite his literal flesh and drink his blood. But Jesus says in that same chapter that he's speaking spiritually, not literally. John 6:63 - "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

On top of that, every time we have communion, Jesus would be suffering which cannot be true. I Peter 3:18 - "For Christ also hath suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God."

I'm Orthodox. We don't fit into the mold for the discussion. We are not Roman Catholic (in fact the Latins were Orthodox up until the attempt to impose papal supremacy and the Filioque on us). We do call ourselves "catholic", but we do not normally mean this in the more novel sense of "universal" but in the older sense found in the early centuries, the sense found in St. Ignatius of Antioch and the Nicene Creed.

The RC view of transubstantiation arose after Aristotle had been reintroduced to the West. The East had never lost the knowledge of the old philosophers (in fact, it was eastern Christians who translated it into Arabic to tame their new Muslim overlords in the ME and which Muslims subsequently exported to the West). When they rediscovered him, Aristotle became all the rage, and there was a movement called scholasticism to reconcile pagan philosophy, particularly Aristotle, with theology. Transubstantiation is the result of an attempt to explain the transformation in the Eucharist in terms of Aristotelian metaphysics (substance and accidents; ironically these terms in the original Greek are actually more closely related to the term "catholic" than the now popular "universal" lol).

Luther attempted to preserve the doctrine of the Real Presence while moving away from transubstantiation; he disliked philosophy quite a bit. However, he kept the same curiosity and need to explain things. The result is consubstantiation, and it doesn't really preserve the Real Presence.

The Radical Reformation, under the anti-materialistic influence of Calvin and Zwingli, adopted a purely symbolic view. Of the three views, this is the only one that could be found in the early centuries, and it was found only among the Gnostics.

The Real Presence is a doctrine in early Christianity that was, as far as we can tell, universal in the early years in the Apostolic Church. The only dissenters were the Gnostics (against whom verses like I Jn. 4.1ff. were written). Some people quote St. Clement of Alexandria on account of one very obfuscated passage. It is obscure and difficult to interpret and contradicts his stances in other areas. Every early reference that speaks on it, speaks about it as literally the Flesh and Blood of Christ. The Bible wasn't universal yet. The Trinity wasn't universal yet. The Real Presence was. This doctrine is not optional.

The Orthodox view is that it is really the Body and Blood of Christ. We do not say exactly when it is transformed. We do not say the manner it is transformed. We call the act a μυστήριον, mysterion, from which we derive the English word "mystery". In Greek this not only included our meaning but also the meaning of a ritual or act that confers an encounter with divinity on the participant. Think about that when you read St. Paul's words "Great is the Mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the Flesh..." in I Tim. 3.16ff. That is an explicit reference to the Mystery of mysteries. It is simply lost in translation. Incidentally, this shade of the meaning of the word (which was quite common in Greek) is the source for the term "mystery religion" for the various pagan religions at the time.

We do not think it is fitting to speculate on how the change happens, when it happens, or so on. The Mystery is sacred and is, well, a Mystery. It is not forbidden, but it is not encouraged and belongs to the realm of pious opinion (hence transubstantiation is not a forbidden belief among us; it is simply not a dogma), and we've had people speculate in our own camp. In general this is the eastern practice (e.g. Chalcedon never even said, "This is how the Incarnation took place..." but rather "Do not believe it took place this way...", which, sadly, caused a schism since the Orientals wanted, depending on the sect, to anathematize ways of explaining it other than what they believed).

In the Early Church, the doctrine of the Incarnation wasn't rooted in substitutionary atonement but in a doctrine known as "theosis". To quote St. Athanasius the Great, "God became man so that men might become divine." When Arius denied Christ's divinity, Athanasius' response was that if Christ wasn't God, He couldn't confer divinity upon our human nature. When Macedonius denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the objection was that if the Holy Spirit He could not confer divinity upon the Church through the Eucharist. It goes without saying that the same thing applies to the Eucharist: if it does not become the Body and Blood, then it cannot confer an experience in the divine, much less make us sons of God. As such, denying the Real Presence falls under the condemnation of I Jn. 4.1ff. One may disagree, but such a Christianity is new. It has no more to do with what existed in the first centuries than Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses on that point. It is, quite frankly, antichristian.

On the Eucharist, read the following from the lips of the early Christians themselves:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John himself, in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans 7 he makes some pretty damning statements about those who deny it (the Gnostics). He was addressing Docetism, which is hardly what Protestants believe, but he preaches the Real Presence and speaks very lowly about the alternative. In Philadelphians 4, he asserts something to similar to St. Paul's words in I Cor. 10.17 "There is one loaf of bread, we, who are many, are one body because we all partake of the one loaf of bread." The Church is one Church, because she celebrates one Eucharist.

St. Justin Martyr described the Eucharist as the literal flesh and blood of Christ in his Apology (chapter 66).

St. Cyprian of Carthage also talks about it in his Epistle to Caecilius.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote a series of Lectures and in Lecture XXII, he expounds what he has received.

Regarding what I spoke about the Incarnation, read St. Athanasius On the Incarnation. For the Holy Spirit's role, read On the Holy Spirit. The Eucharist fits into the same chain of salvation they describe for the Son and the Spirit. It is not a doctrine in isolation. The Son came to make us sons of God. The Spirit enables the Mysteries. The Mysteries, particularly the Body and Blood of Christ, confer participation in divinity.

This is a comment, or I could be more extensive. This is a dogma of Christianity. The Early Church was universal on this matter. Universal. Rival views today hinge on the word "memory", and a quick study of how it is used in the LXX show how faulty that is. Jesus said, "This is My Body", "This is My Blood", and "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you." When people started leaving Him because it sounded like cannibalism (the accusation of the Romans incidentally), He did not say "I didn't mean it that way" but let them go. He meant it, and His followers would die just to take it, since it was one of the easiest ways to track them down.

I don't think Protestants tend to take communion seriously enough, but actually literally being Jesus flesh and blood I don't know.  Odder things have happened but Jesus also said "I am the vine" and we don't consider vines to actually be God...  I don't spend much time thinking about it, even when it's brought up like this.  I mean the greatest two commandments basically take all my time and energy and I still fail at them so I don't have any left over to argue tradition v. sola scriptura or the authority of the pope or saints.  

@canicus@xanga -  I can't wrap my head around it and I guess I don't understand why it is so important.  (I know that's like blasphemy to those who live by it, but I'm just trying to be honest.)  I've heard many arguments over it, and I even went through first communion and learned all about it.  I guess it comes down to: how does it actually literally/physically etc. being flesh and blood change my life in any way?  I can't see how it would change anything, so I suppose that's why I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure it out or research it or anything.

@canicus@xanga - Thanks for understanding, I've seen a lot of people get blasted on here for not immediately accepting Catholic beliefs.

@theworldiswatchingyou@xanga - Welcome. It is unwise to change one's beliefs at the drop of a hat, that is a sign of instability, double-mindedness as St. James put it. I would be disappointed if you did so. Normally it is not healthy. I'm also glad that you believe in our connectedness. Too often people assume they are individuals apart from the community, especially in practice.

Why do you believe that our sins are wholly washed away? We still sin. We still die. We still suffer from corruption. I assume you mean by sins, simply transgressions and disobedience. In the Orthodox Church, we believe that there are sins in that sense, and sin in a more collective sense, corruption and mortality.

We are given a new nature at baptism, but the old nature persists. Not everything is made right immediately, or else we wouldn't sin anymore, we wouldn't die, we wouldn't fall sick. All our weaknesses stem from the old nature. We must struggle against it, put it to death, but this happens daily. We must transform ourselves.

In this sense we must also consider that sin manifested itself in this world physically: death, decay, illness, corruption, and so on. These in turn make us more subject to sin. "So death passed to all men, so that all men sinned." (Rom. 5.12 "so that" is ἐφ' ὧ and is causal. It can be "so that" or "because", or even both; I think it is both in this case, but that would be gibberish in English). If our physical signs of death and sin persist, then we must still struggle. This physical connection is intrinsic. It must be there not just because of the nature of sin, but more so because of our nature. Sin is how it is because of our nature, really. We are physical creatures as well as spiritual ones, psycho-somatic creatures. Our emotions are influenced by the weather, by our food, by hormonal imbalances, by bacteria, by smell, just about everything physical. We can't ignore this. It's part of us. If this is what we are, then our salvation and restoration should reflect it. Our connectedness runs deep, not just to each other or in the spirit, but to the very world around us.

The hypotheticals you mention must be avoided. The Spirit is, as the Eucharistic prayers say, everywhere present and filling all things. Such questions really are pointless and they require us to judge others. Even with the belief you stated, the issue arises. What happens to a Buddhist who truly loves his neighbor but dies without ever hearing the Gospel? We can parse the question, but ultimately, it is none of our business. God can break the norm anytime He feels like it. He is God, after all. We can only speak about the norm. Baptism is required, but people have been saved without it. A pagan prophet is no prophet of God, yet God spoke to Balaam. God is not a god of the nations, yet He took on the name of the father of Baal (while forbidding Baal's name). In the Buddhist's case, is not every child he has pity on Christ? If he has love, can he really have it outside of the work of God? It comes from the image of God in him, after all, and is actualized by the grace of God. We do not know his fate. It is not our business, and speculating about it is a quick way to cause the Spirit to withdraw. Such questions are purely academic, and actually harmful to our souls.  Sadly, I have a tendency toward being too academic. I think this is one of the reasons the Lord has blocked me form returning to the university.

I can't exegete the type of connection and experience I have in the Eucharist or even the services (someone like Fr. Stephen Freeman would be much better at that; I'm too analytical and academic in temperament). I can simply say that I've been in a variety of services. I was even making a Baptist minister. I've been around the block, even participating in a sort of religiously philosophical approach to life. When I was chrismated into the Church and received the Gifts, something changed, and I saw something profound (which has cemented forever for me the Real Presence). When I had attended one of the services at a former church I went to, and even trained at, I felt something different still. It no longer felt like it used to. It isn't because God was never there, or He never acted. It is because my own experiences and person had already been changed too much. I was no longer compatible, and it gave me a vantage point to know the differences between the two. It took time for me to be able to feel it with the Church, then it took time for me to understand it on a gut level, so to speak, and it took me having a very bad experience to really cement it (no fault of my former co-religionists at all; they were very loving). I cannot know what the similarity of your experiences are, and I cannot confer my own. Only God can do those things (and if I tried, I'd really botch it up; I'm good at that).

I also did a Biblical study on this - and ended up changing my view. I believed at one time that there had to be some means of grace that was communicated at the Lord's Supper. But I now see it as memorial. An interesting thing to do - and the reason why I changed my view - is to lay out the passages and see the points of commonality in all of them. The study, for those interested, is here.

I still haven't seen a single passage that teaches that this memorial is anything other than just that - a memorial.

@CoG_Love - great explanation.  Thanks.

@CoG_Love - @sugartomyhoney@xanga - 

@scrambledmegsntoast@xanga - This is ad hominem.