Whispers in the Wasteland

Real Presence

At Zillas we've been having a bit of fun over Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation. John is a practicing Catholic, but prefers the Lutheran definition. Here's what I posted:

--------------------

Guys,

I'm sorry that I've been slow on the uptake here. I took John at his word that he believed in the real presence, and ignored the evidence that said otherwise. I can be dim that way sometimes. Let's consider some of the evidence:

1) John has problems getting juiced up for Mass.

2) John doubts some of the historical veracity of the Gospels and I presume that also applies somewhat to the Acts and letters of the Apostles.

3) While claiming that the Lutheran belief and the Orthodox/Catholic belief are essentially the same thing, John belittled Catholic belief:

Part way... Only from the point of view of a Catholic... The Lutheran acceptance of reality... there is wine in the cup and bread on the alter before and after the blessing... does not diminish the divinity therein...

Five? A thousand? Two?

If I tell a man that this blessing turns his cow into a chicken... do I insist that Bossie is clucking to complete the effect?

I suggest that 2 and 3 are directly related to 1.

Earlier I quoted a review of Timothy Ware's book on Orthodox Christianity, "Although the Orthodox attach importance to the Holy Scriptures, they regard the Bible as a verbal icon of Christ but not as a substitute for the spirit of Christianity."

That's a nice way to put it. But another way to put it, and this is an Evangelical perspective moving toward Catholic:

I saw at once that regular biblical fellowship and regular Holy Communion were both a form of ritual; both "means of grace." The only difference is that in the former, God transubstantiates paper, ink, and the human voice into His Word; whereas in the latter, according to Catholics, He changes the bread and wine into something more impressive. -- Mark P. Shea, THIS IS MY BODY, An Evangelical Discovers The Real Presence

It strikes me, that John has difficulty embracing both Scripture and Holy Communion. He has trouble accepting that the Bible is the uncorrupted word of God. A veil of time stretches between him and the events recorded, and it seems inevitable to him that its historical truth has and will degrade over time. Likewise, it is hocus pocus (*) that the substance of our Lord Jesus Christ has replaced the substance of the bread. "This is my body." Our Lord cannot be within the bread or partly share substance with the bread.

[(*) Hocus Pocus - This is an alteration of Latin "hoc est enim corpus meum" -- "this is my body" (from its use in the Eucharist at the time of transubstantiation).]

When you look in the mirror or at a picture of yourself, you will often think, "that's me there" but that's not true. That is a reflection of you, that is a picture of you, but it is NOT you. Likewise, the literal interpretation of this scripture is clearly intended by Christ. "Is" means "is."

Re-read Christ in the Eucharist.
[Mark Shea makes the same argument in his book, I'm kinda surprised
that I've found the book useful]

And so for John, a veil is between him and God in the species of Holy Communion. He strives and struggles as he tries to reach for God's grace, and he fails. This is to be expected. One cannot demand God's grace, it must be given to you.

The importance of an apostolic church is that only they, in an unbroken chain of succession, can do the Hocus Pocus. You cannot just believe that the real presence is there (that by mere belief you can force His presence), but that it must be consecrated by a valid priest. The laying of hands is important, and this affects the belief of the non-apostolic churches. The bread is a symbol of Christ. For it can only be thus. Catholics worship the Real Presence, the Euchrist, and if it were not for the Real Presence, a total transubstantiation, we would be committing a blasphemy, the Blessed Sacrament would be idolatry, and we would be breaking the First Commandment.

Minister: "The Body of Christ"
Communicant: "Amen"

For me and other believing Catholics, God is there. He is present in a most personnal way. I take the host within me, and I am in Communion with God. A direct pipe. "Communion" -- words mean things.

The other hook is the sacrifice. The Church claims the Mass is a sacrifice, but it is not a repeat of the sacrifice at Calvary. God, the Creator is apart from his creation, and exists outside of time. He transcends time. So when you are in Communion with God, "You are there" as the old newsreels pronounced.

I will not deny the Crucifixion (which is why I find it so puzzling that Christians can convert to Islam). The one thing I center upon are the untranslated words of Jesus on the cross "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 16:34) That is a fact. Those were His words. A historical Fact. And so when I view the trailer of The Passion, I am profoundly affected. I am overwhelmed. The suffering of our Savior on the cross sears my soul, and I am grateful for his sacrifice for my sins. This is what is accomplished on the altar, just as a lamb was sacrificed for the Jews in the temple altar for atonement, the Lamb of God is sacrificed for our sins. And so "I am there." I am a witness. I confess.

J.R.R. Tolkien called this True Myth the Eucatastrophe.

"The eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function." It denies the universal final defeat and is evangelium, giving a glimpse of Joy, "poignant as grief." Tolkien describes the Christian Story, the Gospel "which embraces all the essence of fairy stories."

"[T]his story has entered History and the primary world; the desire and aspiration of sub-creation has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation. The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man's history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the "inner consistency of reality." There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true, and none which so many skeptical men have accepted as true on its own merits. For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation. To reject it leads either to sadness or to wrath.

I cannot view the Real Presence in any other way, than that Jesus, divine and human, is actually there, not sharing substance with the bread and wine, but unfiltered, unadulterated, actually and truly really present.

I posit that John's doubts about this and the historical truth of scripture, are in effect -- whether he consciously wishes this or not -- are in effect a veil between himself and his God. And I am sorry.

--------------------

Update: John maintains that he believes in the real presence. As far as I can see, he denies transubstantiation as a valid doctrine for the real presence, and so the substance of my concluding paragraph remains the same, that there is a veil between him and God. I suppose whether consubstantiation satisfies the real presence is not a worthwhile debate, but that which one is Truth is far more important. I hope that I've made a reasonable argument that transubstantiation is correct and true.

Posted by Bob at August 16, 2003 01:47 AM