Things I don't get about Real Presence

[Obsidian]

That isn't an issue for us. When the deacon enters the altar just before communion, after the bread and wine have become the Body and Blood, he says, "Divide, master, the holy bread" to the priest. This is when the priest, obviously, divides up communion. So, we have no problem with St Paul's language here.

Well, yeah, if you don't mind thinking two contradictory ideas at once, then I guess you would have no problem with it. But if you believe that the bread physically becomes flesh, then logically it cannot also physically be bread.

[Thersites]

Well, yeah, if you don't mind thinking two contradictory ideas at once, then I guess you would have no problem with it. But if you believe that the bread physically becomes flesh, then logically it cannot also physically be bread.

Somewhat ironically, this is very well accounted for in the Thomistic view of accidents vs substance-- that is, of transubstantiation. In its accidents (i.e. physical qualities), it is bread, but its substance (i.e. deeper reality) is the Body of Jesus.

[Obsidian]

That sounds more like the Calvinist spiritual view than the Catholic view.

[Thersites]

from wikipedia:

In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) means the change, in the Eucharist, of the substance of wheat bread and grape wine into the substance of the Body and Blood (respectively) of Jesus, while all that is accessible to the senses (the species) or appearances) remains as before.

Some Greek Orthodox Church confessions of faith use the term "transubstantiation" (metousiosis), but most Orthodox Christian traditions play down the term itself, and the notions of "substance" and "accidents", while adhering to the holy mystery that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during Divine Liturgy. Other terms such as "trans-elementation" (μεταστοιχείωσις metastoicheiosis) and "re-ordination" (μεταρρύθμισις metarrhythmisis) are more common among the Orthodox.

[Maxentius]

Well, yeah, if you don't mind thinking two contradictory ideas at once, then I guess you would have no problem with it. But if you believe that the bread physically becomes flesh, then logically it cannot also physically be bread.

Is it a contradiction to say that shaking Jesus' hand is shaking God's hand?

If so, I am afraid yo ufall into a form of Nestorianism. If not, then there is no contradiction in saying the bread and wine are Jesus' body and blood respectively--even while remaining bread and wine.

There is a problem in only seeing transubstantiation as the only way of explaining the real presence.

[Kelp]

If so, I am afraid yo ufall into a form of Nestorianism. If not, then there is no contradiction in saying the bread and wine are Jesus' body and blood respectively--even while remaining bread and wine.

But wouldn't this imply that Jesus isn't just fully God and fully man but also fully bread and fully grape?

[Obsidian]

Someone can be human and God at the same time. Something cannot be human and bread at the same time. And anyway, the Catholics don't say that it is human and bread. They say that it is only human, but that it only looks like bread. That is obviously unbiblical, because Paul calls it bread.

[Kelp]

No, I think it's "Christ in every sense that is fundamentally important." Essence vs. Accident. You naturally have fingernails, teeth, and hair, but if they fell out you'd be no less human: fingernails, teeth, and hair are accidental to what it means to be human.

In the same way, the host still retains that which is accidental to bread and wine, while that which is essential has been replaced by Christ. So, when one asks "is it not bread and wine," the answer will depend on whether you're talking essentially or accidentally. At least that's how I'm understanding it.

[RBerman]

No, I think it's "Christ in every sense that is fundamentally important." Essence vs. Accident. You naturally have fingernails, teeth, and hair, but if they fell out you'd be no less human: fingernails, teeth, and hair are accidental to what it means to be human. In the same way, the host still retains that which is accidental to bread and wine, while that which is essential has been replaced by Christ. So, when one asks "is it not bread and wine," the answer will depend on whether you're talking essentially or accidentally. At least that's how I'm understanding it.

You're confusing a "part vs whole" distinction with a "nature of the whole" distinction. A human who loses his hair loses human hair, as opposed to baboon or rat hair. The whole "incident vs accident" line of reasoning is nothing but verbal sleight of hand which obfuscates Christ's symbolic language, which ought to be as clear as "I am the vine, you are the branches."

[Kelp]

A human who loses his hair loses human hair, as opposed to baboon or rat hair.

And yet we have people who have gotten pig organs via transplant and are still people. Not to mention machine organs, wooden legs, etc. The sine qua non of their humanity obviously remains intact despite receiving a part very different from anything they were born with.

The whole "incident vs accident" line of reasoning is nothing but verbal sleight of hand which obfuscates Christ's symbolic language, which ought to be as clear as "I am the vine, you are the branches."

You sound kind of like a Jehovah's Witness objecting to Trinitarian language.

[Little Shepherd]

And yet we have people who have gotten pig organs via transplant and are still people. Not to mention machine organs, wooden legs, etc. The sine qua non of their humanity obviously remains intact despite receiving a part very different from anything they were born with.

I'm pretty sure RB was speaking of that which comes from a human. A human produces human hair, human nails, human skin, etc. The human body does not produce pig hearts, wooden legs, machine organs, etc. They are foreign objects introduced to the human body by outside sources. We introduce foreign objects to our body all the time in the form of food, medicine, and air, and old cells are constantly being replaced by new cells, but we remain human day in and day out nonetheless.

[Kelp]

Yes, but food, etc. doesn't become a permanent (subject to human action just like hair is, of course) part of our body. It is eliminated unlike the things I mentioned.

I can get a pacemaker and it becomes part of me, being integrated into my cardiovascular system to the extent possible. Then later I can get it removed and it ceases to be a part of me just as though I had lost a hair.

The host has Something foreign added to it that not only becomes a permanent part like an organ transplant but unlike an organ transplant alters the essential nature of the host.

[Maxentius]

But wouldn't this imply that Jesus isn't just fully God and fully man but also fully bread and fully grape?

Obsidian stated there is a contradiction saying the bread and wine can be Jesus' body and blood at the same time. I gave an example from accepted Christian theology which you would have to say is basically a heresy if it is a contradiction to say a thing cannot have two natures at the same time. So, no, my question and its answer does not imply Jesus is fully bread, it states, rather clearly, that there is no contradiction if one accepts Chalcidonian christology.

If what you claim is true, then I submit you will be forced by necessity to have a Nestorian Christology.

[Maxentius]

Someone can be human and God at the same time. Something cannot be human and bread at the same time. And anyway, the Catholics don't say that it is human and bread. They say that it is only human, but that it only looks like bread. That is obviously unbiblical, because Paul calls it bread.

You are just making an assertion. Why, if the bread cannot be Jesus' body, should we accept that a human can be God?

And there are more options than transubstantiation, so unless the thread owner says so, I am using a legitimate line of argument.

Regarding Paul, Jesus calls it his body and blood. In fact, your account has to re-interpret his own words, while mine do not. I have no theological problem using the terms bread/wine-body/blood interchangeably.

Also regarding Paul, how do you interpret 1 Cor 11:27:

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord."

What, in context, is considered "unworthy"?

Perhaps verse 29 will help:

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Now, I am sure you have an answer, but merely stating "Paul calls it bread" is not enough. There is quite a bit more going on there.

[Obsidian]

Why, if the bread cannot be Jesus' body, should we accept that a human can be God?

Because God is powerful enough to change his form into other things. Although the Bible doesn't spell out all the mechanics of it, there isn't anything all that puzzling about the Incarnation. I don't consider it contradictory. But it's one thing to say God can change the Son into a human, and quite another to say that he can change the Son into two contradictory things at once.

And there are more options than transubstantiation, so unless the thread owner says so, I am using a legitimate line of argument.

Well then quit arguing with me, because my argument is against transubstantiation and probably doesn't apply to you if you don't believe in transubstantiation.

Now, I am sure you have an answer, but merely stating "Paul calls it bread" is not enough. There is quite a bit more going on there.

Catholicism teaches that the food is not actually bread, but only looks like it to the senses. On a side note, I'm not sure whether that "body" is referring to Jesus or to the church members.