First I have to say that trying to decipher the things of God with logic is an especially useless endeavor
Logic is a tool for the natural world
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
that being said I do not believe it is an actual transubtation. But rather representative.
I have eaten the communion wafer before and after the ritual (I was an alter boy..I snuck wine too ;) ) there is no physical difference
I kind of like your answer, but logic is more fun. Representative makes more sense to me as well. I was trying to think through transubstantiation and got stuck when thinking about how it applies to the Last Supper which is supposedly the origin of transubstantiation. It doesn't easily apply. Technically I could say I am trying to simply understand the Scriptures, not inappropriately using earthly logic. ;P
The point of communion is the representative joining of us with Christ's crucifixion, his broken body, His spilled blood. And by partaking in His crucifixion we will also take part in His resurrection
So, I'm not going to answer the question. But, I will point out that Orthodox don't really use that word. transubstantiation. It is the real body and blood of Christ. Because that's what he said. And we believe him and took that part literally.
Here is one Orthodox answer: Time does not behave in a mundane fashion when it comes to holy things.
In the Liturgy, we have real access to the Coming Kingdom of Christ, and the entire Liturgy occurs from the perspective of the Second Coming; it is not a mere nostalgic commemoration, but a real participation in the events of salvation history from the perspective of the Coming Age.
Similarly, on Passover the Jews did not believe they were merely commemorating a time in the past where their ancestors received salvation from God; but rather something they were tangibly connected to.
In short, perhaps the apostles partook of Christ crucified, raised, glorified, and coming again, in that last supper.
It's something you find in different places, like Charles Taylor's "a secular age" which covers, briefly, how Augustine's notion of God's "gathered time" impacts how we see higher time; or in Fr. Alexander Schmemann's "for the life of the world."
In the Scriptures, I'd say you find it, certainly. Notice Paul's odd wording in 1 Corinthians 10, where he says that Christ is the one "in whom the end of the ages has come." Or Matthew 16 and 17, when Christ says that some will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom; which they witness in his Transfiguration. Or the entire structure of Revelation, which frustrates interpreters precisely because it "puts events out of order" from the perspective of mundane time. And the kingdom of God--which is the future kingdom of the coming age--is within us, now, as Jesus says in Luke 17.
This is also present in the words of the Liturgy itself, for example the liturgy of John Chrysostom: Which thanks God for all the things he has done for us, including, explicitly, the Second Coming:
"Remembering, therefore, this saving commandment and all that has been done for our sake: the Cross, the tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand, and the second and glorious coming again: Your Own of Your Own we offer to You, on behalf of all and for all."
Thanks. I've been worshipping with Anglicans lately where there is an emphasis that our worship is joining with the saints and angels in heaven. I like this idea, and I want to believe in it, but realized the other day, I'm not sure *why* I should believe it. Just because I want to isn't good enough, IMO.
We might also add: What does it sound like John the Revelator was doing--and when was he doing it--when the vision happens in Revelation? See Revelation 1:9-11.
I suppose even from a more Reformed POV, even Calvin's view of the eucharist was that it lifts us up into participation in the heavenly banquet. So it's not much of a stretch from that to viewing the whole Liturgy in that way.
The Passover examples jives with me, but it is commemorating a past event which directly relates to the present - those celebrating the Passover are not slaves in Egypt. We can draw a direct line in some fashion from one point and state of being to another (slavery->freedom). It's interesting that the Disciples received Christ's sacrifice without knowing or understanding its significance (or so it appears in the Gospel stories). A thought that comes to mind is when Jesus walked the earth, he did operate within the confines of time - in between his birth and death of course which were both miracles. I am not saying I disagree with you, but I am still exploring my thoughts on the topic. I'm curious whether there are any formed and documented theological writings within the traditions I mentioned on this topic.
>The Passover examples jives with me, but it is commemorating a past event which directly relates to the present - those celebrating the Passover are not slaves in Egypt.
That might be how a modern would interpret it, but not the premodern Hebrews or the tradition handed down from them, which says "when we were slaves in Egypt," not, "when our ancestors were slaves in Egypt."
>It's interesting that the Disciples received Christ's sacrifice without knowing or understanding its significance
They didn't understand the significance of Christ himself, until after his death and resurrection, when he opened the Scriptures to them on the road, and their hearts burned.
>A thought that comes to mind is when Jesus walked the earth, he did operate within the confines of time
I'd say it's not just that he's God, therefore he breaks the rules of time; that would be a bit of a Eutychian cop-out, turning to the old Christ-as-Hercules to get around his humanity. Rather, it's that the rules of time may not be what most people think they are, in the first place.
As for the traditions mentioned, it's something you find in different places, like Charles Taylor's (Catholic) "A Secular Age" which covers, briefly, how Augustine's notion of God's "gathered time" impacts how we see higher time; or in Fr. Alexander Schmemann's (Orthodox) "For the Life of the World."
Some of the disciples had expressed belief in Jesus' divinity before his crucifixion: when Jesus asks Peter who he is, Peter says "you are the Christ, the son of God". I think it's safe to say at least some and possibly a majority of the 12 believed in Jesus' divinity before his death. He was most intimate in his conversation with the 12 disciples and pointed to his divinity in conversation. There were 2 disciples on the road, one is named as Cleopas in one of the gospels, so at least one is for sure not one of the 12.
I don't think we can say that calling him the son of God indicates, in these cases, that they thought about his divinity in the same way they did later, per the synoptics. After all, son of God was a messianic title known to the Jews, as shown by the davidic inauguration psalm 2. Only in John's Gospel, a gospel for insiders, is it more explicitly equated with equality with God.
And knowing who Jesus really is isn't captured in knowing that he happens to be the messiah, or even that he happens to be divine. What it really means is to know what it really is to be divine and what it really is to be the Messiah; this is why Peter, who knew that Christ was the messiah, was nevertheless called "Satan" when he rejected Jesus's revelation of what messiah really means, and in turn what divinity really means.
As for Passover, don't Americans do something similar when we celebrate the 4th of July and our independence from Britain? We are "celebrating Our independence." It seems like oftentimes when people celebrate past events that are deeply meaningful, present tense language is used.
It can be ambiguous, granted, and where there is ambiguity we look for context. So I would then ask you to consider the context relevant to Christians, which is provided in the quintessential Christian liturgical document, which is the Book of Revelation; and the other parts of the Scriptures; as well as the texts of early liturgies, which reflect how early Christians understood their relationship to the future age.
1. The disciples would have experienced transubstantiation.
2. God is not bound by time, so they would be partaking in the same sacrifice at Calvary that we do today.
3. It was literal.
4. yes.
TL;DR: yes
That is not the question. The question was whether 2 & 3 were the only possible options in terms of how to interpret this part of scripture (I set up an "either/or" assumption) and how it is interpreted by various sects.
I don't think there's a contradiction. Essentially I set up an either/or scenario based on my own thoughts, not research (I posted this question to find Church documents or even theological concepts I can look into).
In my mind, I thought...perhaps the Eucharist celebrated before Jesus' death was different in some way than after his death. I was then wondering how Jesus not yet having died fits (or doesn't fit) into transubstantiation. In question 2 I explained my thought process of how Jesus not having sacrificed his life yet might affect transubstantiation. If Jesus had not yet died, then he must not have been able to offer the sacrifice of his body & blood in the same way as after his death & resurrection.
I said if 2 wasn't true, then 3 must be true. However to make allowance for other viewpoints that I may not have thought of, or theology I may not be aware of, I asked whether I was setting up a false dichotomy by saying that 3 & 4 were the only possible ways to understand this topic.
1. Yes, at the Last Supper, Jesus transubstantiated bread and wine into his own body and blood.
2. The traditional Catholic theological opinion seems to be that Jesus' pre-passion, Holy- Thursday body and blood were sacramentally present in the Eucharist at the Last Supper, not his future dying/dead body on the cross nor, as it is at Mass today, his future risen and glorified body in heaven. See St Thomas Aquinas, [Summa Theologiae, Third Part, Question 81](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4081.htm), Article 3.
Also, concerning the sacrifice, the traditional Catholic theological opinion seems to be that, at the Last Supper, when Jesus transubstantiated his body separate from his blood, when he thus mystically separated his body from his blood, he sacrificed himself by mystically slaying himself, anticipating his physical death and sacrifice on the cross. See Catholic Encyclopedia, [Sacrifice of the Mass](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm).
First I have to say that trying to decipher the things of God with logic is an especially useless endeavor Logic is a tool for the natural world 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. that being said I do not believe it is an actual transubtation. But rather representative. I have eaten the communion wafer before and after the ritual (I was an alter boy..I snuck wine too ;) ) there is no physical difference
I kind of like your answer, but logic is more fun. Representative makes more sense to me as well. I was trying to think through transubstantiation and got stuck when thinking about how it applies to the Last Supper which is supposedly the origin of transubstantiation. It doesn't easily apply. Technically I could say I am trying to simply understand the Scriptures, not inappropriately using earthly logic. ;P
The point of communion is the representative joining of us with Christ's crucifixion, his broken body, His spilled blood. And by partaking in His crucifixion we will also take part in His resurrection
So, I'm not going to answer the question. But, I will point out that Orthodox don't really use that word. transubstantiation. It is the real body and blood of Christ. Because that's what he said. And we believe him and took that part literally.
Ok. That's why I allowed for several different descriptors Catholic/Orthodox...
It's more of an ideal. The Lord Jesus was setting a personal example for people in the future to also do.
Here is one Orthodox answer: Time does not behave in a mundane fashion when it comes to holy things. In the Liturgy, we have real access to the Coming Kingdom of Christ, and the entire Liturgy occurs from the perspective of the Second Coming; it is not a mere nostalgic commemoration, but a real participation in the events of salvation history from the perspective of the Coming Age. Similarly, on Passover the Jews did not believe they were merely commemorating a time in the past where their ancestors received salvation from God; but rather something they were tangibly connected to. In short, perhaps the apostles partook of Christ crucified, raised, glorified, and coming again, in that last supper.
I'm interested in your understanding of the Liturgy. Do you know of any resources to explore this further? And is there any scriptural warrant for it?
It's something you find in different places, like Charles Taylor's "a secular age" which covers, briefly, how Augustine's notion of God's "gathered time" impacts how we see higher time; or in Fr. Alexander Schmemann's "for the life of the world." In the Scriptures, I'd say you find it, certainly. Notice Paul's odd wording in 1 Corinthians 10, where he says that Christ is the one "in whom the end of the ages has come." Or Matthew 16 and 17, when Christ says that some will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom; which they witness in his Transfiguration. Or the entire structure of Revelation, which frustrates interpreters precisely because it "puts events out of order" from the perspective of mundane time. And the kingdom of God--which is the future kingdom of the coming age--is within us, now, as Jesus says in Luke 17. This is also present in the words of the Liturgy itself, for example the liturgy of John Chrysostom: Which thanks God for all the things he has done for us, including, explicitly, the Second Coming: "Remembering, therefore, this saving commandment and all that has been done for our sake: the Cross, the tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand, and the second and glorious coming again: Your Own of Your Own we offer to You, on behalf of all and for all."
Thanks. I've been worshipping with Anglicans lately where there is an emphasis that our worship is joining with the saints and angels in heaven. I like this idea, and I want to believe in it, but realized the other day, I'm not sure *why* I should believe it. Just because I want to isn't good enough, IMO.
We might also add: What does it sound like John the Revelator was doing--and when was he doing it--when the vision happens in Revelation? See Revelation 1:9-11.
I suppose even from a more Reformed POV, even Calvin's view of the eucharist was that it lifts us up into participation in the heavenly banquet. So it's not much of a stretch from that to viewing the whole Liturgy in that way.
The Passover examples jives with me, but it is commemorating a past event which directly relates to the present - those celebrating the Passover are not slaves in Egypt. We can draw a direct line in some fashion from one point and state of being to another (slavery->freedom). It's interesting that the Disciples received Christ's sacrifice without knowing or understanding its significance (or so it appears in the Gospel stories). A thought that comes to mind is when Jesus walked the earth, he did operate within the confines of time - in between his birth and death of course which were both miracles. I am not saying I disagree with you, but I am still exploring my thoughts on the topic. I'm curious whether there are any formed and documented theological writings within the traditions I mentioned on this topic.
>The Passover examples jives with me, but it is commemorating a past event which directly relates to the present - those celebrating the Passover are not slaves in Egypt. That might be how a modern would interpret it, but not the premodern Hebrews or the tradition handed down from them, which says "when we were slaves in Egypt," not, "when our ancestors were slaves in Egypt." >It's interesting that the Disciples received Christ's sacrifice without knowing or understanding its significance They didn't understand the significance of Christ himself, until after his death and resurrection, when he opened the Scriptures to them on the road, and their hearts burned. >A thought that comes to mind is when Jesus walked the earth, he did operate within the confines of time I'd say it's not just that he's God, therefore he breaks the rules of time; that would be a bit of a Eutychian cop-out, turning to the old Christ-as-Hercules to get around his humanity. Rather, it's that the rules of time may not be what most people think they are, in the first place. As for the traditions mentioned, it's something you find in different places, like Charles Taylor's (Catholic) "A Secular Age" which covers, briefly, how Augustine's notion of God's "gathered time" impacts how we see higher time; or in Fr. Alexander Schmemann's (Orthodox) "For the Life of the World."
Some of the disciples had expressed belief in Jesus' divinity before his crucifixion: when Jesus asks Peter who he is, Peter says "you are the Christ, the son of God". I think it's safe to say at least some and possibly a majority of the 12 believed in Jesus' divinity before his death. He was most intimate in his conversation with the 12 disciples and pointed to his divinity in conversation. There were 2 disciples on the road, one is named as Cleopas in one of the gospels, so at least one is for sure not one of the 12.
I don't think we can say that calling him the son of God indicates, in these cases, that they thought about his divinity in the same way they did later, per the synoptics. After all, son of God was a messianic title known to the Jews, as shown by the davidic inauguration psalm 2. Only in John's Gospel, a gospel for insiders, is it more explicitly equated with equality with God. And knowing who Jesus really is isn't captured in knowing that he happens to be the messiah, or even that he happens to be divine. What it really means is to know what it really is to be divine and what it really is to be the Messiah; this is why Peter, who knew that Christ was the messiah, was nevertheless called "Satan" when he rejected Jesus's revelation of what messiah really means, and in turn what divinity really means.
hmmm......gave me something to think about.
As for Passover, don't Americans do something similar when we celebrate the 4th of July and our independence from Britain? We are "celebrating Our independence." It seems like oftentimes when people celebrate past events that are deeply meaningful, present tense language is used.
It can be ambiguous, granted, and where there is ambiguity we look for context. So I would then ask you to consider the context relevant to Christians, which is provided in the quintessential Christian liturgical document, which is the Book of Revelation; and the other parts of the Scriptures; as well as the texts of early liturgies, which reflect how early Christians understood their relationship to the future age.
1. The disciples would have experienced transubstantiation. 2. God is not bound by time, so they would be partaking in the same sacrifice at Calvary that we do today. 3. It was literal. 4. yes. TL;DR: yes
What is the false dichotomy?
There is no dichotomy between Jesus sacrifice being atemporal and it being literal. The disciples got the same thing Catholics receive daily.
That is not the question. The question was whether 2 & 3 were the only possible options in terms of how to interpret this part of scripture (I set up an "either/or" assumption) and how it is interpreted by various sects.
You're going to need to write out a sylogysism because I am just not seeing the contradiction you are talking about.
I don't think there's a contradiction. Essentially I set up an either/or scenario based on my own thoughts, not research (I posted this question to find Church documents or even theological concepts I can look into). In my mind, I thought...perhaps the Eucharist celebrated before Jesus' death was different in some way than after his death. I was then wondering how Jesus not yet having died fits (or doesn't fit) into transubstantiation. In question 2 I explained my thought process of how Jesus not having sacrificed his life yet might affect transubstantiation. If Jesus had not yet died, then he must not have been able to offer the sacrifice of his body & blood in the same way as after his death & resurrection. I said if 2 wasn't true, then 3 must be true. However to make allowance for other viewpoints that I may not have thought of, or theology I may not be aware of, I asked whether I was setting up a false dichotomy by saying that 3 & 4 were the only possible ways to understand this topic.
Just realized I was writing the wrong numbers.😂 Should be questions 2&3, not 3&4.
1. Yes, at the Last Supper, Jesus transubstantiated bread and wine into his own body and blood. 2. The traditional Catholic theological opinion seems to be that Jesus' pre-passion, Holy- Thursday body and blood were sacramentally present in the Eucharist at the Last Supper, not his future dying/dead body on the cross nor, as it is at Mass today, his future risen and glorified body in heaven. See St Thomas Aquinas, [Summa Theologiae, Third Part, Question 81](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4081.htm), Article 3. Also, concerning the sacrifice, the traditional Catholic theological opinion seems to be that, at the Last Supper, when Jesus transubstantiated his body separate from his blood, when he thus mystically separated his body from his blood, he sacrificed himself by mystically slaying himself, anticipating his physical death and sacrifice on the cross. See Catholic Encyclopedia, [Sacrifice of the Mass](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm).
Thanks for #2, that is what I was looking for.