From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Re: Transubstantiation, Catholic ritual, Creation/Evolution, etc.
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:04:03 GMT

In <ripng.1.715534116@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au> ripng@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (PAUL NG) writes:

>A few points about the following:
>1.	Transubstantiation.
>	Transubstantiation merely means that the Mass is not just a 
>community-building exercise where "Christians" come together and have a good 
>time, sing songs, read from some long-dead book, chat amongst themselves, 
>and go home feeling happy.	

I hope that this is not an attack on non-Catholic Christian services!
Have you never read Jesus' words in Matthew 18:20, "Where two or three
come together in my name, there am I with them."  It would seem to me
that you don't need transubstantiation to have the presence of Jesus in
your meetings.

>	Transubstantiation is one of series of facts indicating that Christ 
>is among us, He invited us to meet together, and we Worship Him when we come 
>to Mass.  It is a lot more than a community-building exercise.  When 
>Christians come together they come together to celebrate God, not just their 
>fellow human beings.  That is why when we take communion, the bread and 
>wine "become" the body and blood of Christ, the bread is still bread (you 
>can chew it and not damage Christ's body in any way, for example) and the 
>wine is still wine (its taste and smell should make that clear, as opposed 
>to human blood) but in much the same way as when an art critic calls a white 
>dot on a white canvas "art", or a carpenter calls a flat piece of wood 
>mounted on four wooden stakes a "table", the bread and wine become "FOR US [
>those gathered in His name for the Mass]"...the body and blood of Christ.  
>It isn't and doesn't become the body and blood of Christ if you don't 
>believe in Christ.  The fact that this is "Aristotelian" is irrelevant; the 
>point is, it makes sense.  To me, anyway.  There are quite a few biblical 
>statements in support of Transubstantiation, the most famous of which is 
>that which is quoted everytime at Communion - Jesus' speech to his disciples 
>at the last supper.  I don't have a bible in front of me right now but it's 
>in there some where.         

You miss my point.  Without the Aristotelian view of reality behind it,
transubstantiation doesn't make sense.  If you don't conceive of things
as having accidents and substance, then transubstantiation is a
meaningless concept.

Look at the words of institution in Luke 22:19, "This is my body given
for you; do this in remembrance of me."  Which is the clear part?  Do
you want to say that the bread was his body, or that he intended it as
a symbol to help in remembering him?  I would say the latter, whereas
the Catholic position is the former.  (The Lutherans would probably say
both - they hold to a "real presence" without saying that the bread and
wine cease to be bread and wine).

One of the things that the reformers preached against was the adoration
of the host (I think that's the correct phrase).  If the bread has
become Jesus, then it is worthy of worship.  Worship of bread and wine
is not exactly what I would call correct.  What's more, it led to a
magical view of the efficacy of communion and the elements.

Dredging my memory of Church History lectures, I think that the first
hints of a "real presence" doctrine come in the third century.  I can't
remember who it was - can anyone shed light on this?  If not, I'll have
to find my old notes...
--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics   |    Wycliffe Bible Translators
University of Sydney NSW 2006          |    Graham Rd
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au           |    Kangaroo Ground Vic 3097 AUSTRALIA
Newsgroups: aus.religion