Con or Tran substantiality?

[Jean-Baptiste]

This is, I assure you, not a question to distinguish between Catholic and Protestant, or to actually decide any absolutes based on reason or faith. I'd simply like to see a debate (decent debate, mind you) on the points for one or the other dogma. Please restrict responses to pros on your preference, rather that cons on the opposition, as things could get pretty hairy on this matter. My intention is to stimulate some modern thought on a question that seems to have been decided for the most part in the 13th century. So, which appeals to your senses more, Consubstantiality or Transubstantiality? As I'm too lazy to designate stipulative definitions for these terms, I'll assume that all replies can be based on either prior or self acquired familiarity with the doctrines. Thanks in advance for your contribution. (I have no passionate declarations to make on behalf of either.)

[Whifflingpin]

So - are the Christians of the forum all busy preparing their arguments? or don't they care or dare to express a view?

The arguments turn about the exact meaning of "This is my body," as (reported to have been) spoken by Jesus when he broke the loaf of bread and shared it with his companions at the Last Supper.

Elizabeth I is supposed to have given a clever and politic avoidance of the question:
"His were the hands that brake it;
His were the words that spake it;
And what those words do make it
That is how I take it."

.

[ShoutGrace]

I assumed this thread concerned the Eucharist, but I couldn't be sure. It could also be involved with the doctrine of the Trinity. If it is the former:

I just don't see how it matters. Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me."

So I do . . . I don't really worry about what it means exactly.

So, which appeals to your senses more, Consubstantiality or Transubstantiality?

Neither one appeals to me more than the other. Science ought to be able to have a say. I immediately doubt that the bread is actually turning into flesh . . . I don't see that happening (doesn't taste that way either ).

I assume that the practise is symbolic and non literal.

[Jean-Baptiste]

Yes, ShoutGrace, I intended the Eucharist.

I would assume the same, that it is not to be taken literally, but it seems that those who believe that the bread IS the body do not share that opinion. Hence, the distinction.

If you'd like to give your opinion on the doctine of the consubstantiality of the Father and Son, I'd be very interested. Specifically, what do you think about drawing a relation between the doctrine of the Trinity and man being created in the image of God? Does it refer at all to the three facets of man, viz.: material, intellectual, and spiritual?

Though this is slightly off topic, how do you feel about the distinction between the spiritual and intellectual worlds? Should there be a line drawn between them, or are they the same?

Thanks for the quote, Whifflingpin. Yes, that is very clever.

[ShoutGrace]

Wow. Apparently I didn't know too much about this issue. It doesn't really seem as if there are any major doctrines out there that believe that the bread and wine actually change chemical properties.

* Transubstantiation – the substance (fundamental reality) of the bread and wine is transformed in a way beyond human comprehension into that of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, but the accidents (physical traits, including chemical properties) of the bread and wine remain; this view is held by the Roman Catholic Church and many Anglicans, especially in Anglo-Catholic circles.
* "In, with and under the forms" - the body and blood of Jesus Christ are substantially present in, with and under the substance of the bread and wine, which remain. This is the view held by most Lutherans, and some Anglicans. Some non--Lutherans refer to this view as consubstantiation, but Lutherans almost universally if not universally reject this term.

* Symbolism - the bread and wine are symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and in partaking of the elements the believer commemorates the sacrificial death of Christ. This view is also known as "memorialism" and Zwinglianism after Ulrich Zwingli and is held by several Protestant and Latter-day Saint denominations, including most Baptists.

Specifically, what do you think about drawing a relation between the doctrine of the Trinity and man being created in the image of God? Does it refer at all to the three facets of man, viz.: material, intellectual, and spiritual?

Well, I really wouldn't feel comfortable saying something so definitive. I think in all humility that it would be preposterous for me to claim that I knew anything that absolute or categorically conclusive about something that I believe to be, in it's fullest sense, too overwhelming for the human psyche or intellect.

There is always the interesting idea of this Biblical Supreme Being being categorised as male; many / most find it absurd. One quote that I like:

I also find it interesting that this boundless, infinite, unfathomable God, this God who is beyond all categorisation, is nevertheless male.

I do think that perhaps the fact that the Bible asserts that Jesus was "one with God" and essentially God himself has a bearing on the idea (as he was male) . . . as well as the fact that you mentioned, that men are supposedly created in God's own image.

Though this is slightly off topic . . .

I'm sure we'll be fine as long as we remain civil , a condition of which the probability is, judging by your fine character and my general recent degeneracy, high.

How do you feel about the distinction between the spiritual and intellectual worlds? Should there be a line drawn between them, or are they the same?

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Do expound.

[Jean-Baptiste]

Very fine reply, ShoutGrace. Let's see, about the spiritual and intellectual worlds, I read somewhere that these two could be classed as the same, but this would imply that immortality is found in one's contribution to human knowledge, and that Heaven is found in the realm of mental activity. I don't think I can personally advocate such a view, but it is intriguing to think about. Perhaps I'm not to clear on the implications of this theory. Sorry that I can't remember where I read it.

I didn't intend to specify man, as opposed to woman, as being made in the image of God. I meant mankind, or human kind. I agree with you on the absurdity of a male God. But then, I dislike any attempt at personification of God. That's why I like William Blake's ideas. I have a copy of his painting "The Ancient of Days"; I like that idea of humans creating a God that matches their requirements.

Yes, I think that the controversy over an actual change in substance of the bread and wine was one of the major heresies of the Protestant movement. (I say heresies in the strictest of literal senses, not as a means of stating my personal opinion.) I mean that it was one of the major points of divergence.

As for a comparison of the Trinity with the human makeup, I was thinking about the Cabalistic Tree of Life, and how it (in my limited understanding) seems to divide the microcosm into three distinct states of being, which are then compounded by three distinct aspects of the macrocosm. I know it has little to do with Christian doctrine, but the concept seems relevant to a juxtaposition of the triumvirate (not sure that that's a real word) Godhead with the human condition.

"I'm sure we'll be fine as long as we remain civil." Above all, let us remain so.

[ShoutGrace]

I didn't intend to specify man, as opposed to woman, as being made in the image of God. I meant mankind, or human kind. I agree with you on the absurdity of a male God.

You agree with some of the views I presented concerning the absurdity of the male God; I tried hard to remain unspoken myself on the resolution of the issue.

I like The Unnamable's quote because I just generally like the way he summed that side of the argument up . . . and some of the later remarks he made in the same thread made me laugh out loud.

Let's see, about the spiritual and intellectual worlds, I read somewhere that these two could be classed as the same, but this would imply that immortality is found in one's contribution to human knowledge, and that Heaven is found in the realm of mental activity. I don't think I can personally advocate such a view, but it is intriguing to think about. Perhaps I'm not to clear on the implications of this theory. Sorry that I can't remember where I read it.

That is interesting . . . intriguing, I agree. But what do you think happens when someone is born mentally deficient? Or loses their faculties in their old age?

I like that idea of humans creating a God that matches their requirements.

It does appear to conform, doesn't it? I won't speak to that issue. I can only say that Jesus defines all that I imagine I could begin to grasp concerning an Infinite Supreme Being. I don't even pretend to understand him, even in a secular sense (pretending there isn't a God and he was just an interesting fellow).

I'm going to go look up the Ancient of Days.

[Jean-Baptiste]

I tried to reply to this yesterday, but then my connection went dead, so I'll try to remember the incredibly profound things that I had to say then.

"But what do you think happens when someone is born mentally deficient? Or loses their faculties in their old age?"

This is something that I've thought about to some extent, though not in connection with this topic. I used to take care of disabled adults, and there is no way that I could think that such a person is not really a person, or that they are soulless, just because there is no apparent thought taking place. So that would convince me that a true union of the spiritual and intellectual world is not the case.

However, that brings up a different matter: Is the spirit suseptable to damage like the intellect? In this regard I will consider intellectual deficiency to be a result of damage, without distinguishing between birth defect and post-natal trauma. Therefore, the question becomes, can the spiritual aspect of a human being be actually deficient by whatever means, or does it simply live dormant in some individuals who claim to have no spirituallity? If the later is the case, then perhaps it could be inferred that intellectual rehabilitation is always possible.

I know this is seriously jumping off the topic, but who needs one topic?

[rufioag]

Figuritive speech is a powerful thing.

But I do believe that your life is affected by your spiritual walk. I do in fact notice a difference when I am "walking" with the Lord in all aspects of my life in comparision to when I believe I am strong enough to overcome obstacles that lay in my path. Wish I could go more in depth but class starts in a few minutes and i got to run.

[Jean-Baptiste]

Please do expound on this, rufioag. Do you intend to say that spirituallity is merely a "walk" or an exertion of "figurative speech"? This sounds somewhat like C. S. Lewis' ideas in "Mere Christianity". Are you making a connection with the idea of spiritual rehabilitation, and any power that words and actions can have on that? I'm very interested.

[mtpspur]

My personal belief on communion is that it's symbolic--otherwise the literalist in me conjures up a vision of the Apostles have a diginified dinner of the cannibal persausion. This is not said in jest but to point out the absurdity (to me) of the 'body' of Christ being there prsent in the wine/grape juice--bread/no salt wafers especially when He is in heaven at God's right hand. I like to keep my faith simple --if I want deep I'll read John Owen.

The spiritual walk noted in above posts, for me, is how much am I keeping my eyes, mind and heart on the Lord Christ or how much am I performing for my own glorification or ego boost. Part of my mid-left crisis breakdown came about when a 'project' that literally presented itself on my doorstep became not God's work but MY WORK FOR THE LORD!!! (Me Glorious Me sung to the tune of Food Glorious Food from Oliver) Rule of thumb--God does not and never will share His glory in any of His works--He will share the blessings that come with the work. There is a very great difference. The ultimate downfall of the Pharisses is that they KNEW the scriptures but did not know the Author.