Obviously not. The Catholic transsubstantiation doctrine postdates the last supper ritual quite some time. I'm sure Plotinus can provide a more detailed reply though.
[RD] Ask a Theologian V
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
Obviously not. The Catholic transsubstantiation doctrine postdates the last supper ritual quite some time. I'm sure Plotinus can provide a more detailed reply though.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
But did the bread that Jesus broke at the last supper become his flesh, and the wine become his blood, then and there?
(It's besides the point, imo, when the doctrine of transubstantiation was first formulated, for the purposes of this question.)
(It's besides the point, imo, when the doctrine of transubstantiation was first formulated, for the purposes of this question.)
Spoiler :
Speaking as someone who isn't at all a New Testament scholar, I'd say the obvious answer is that Luke has some other source on which he's drawing. Given that this is one of the rare non-Passion events to feature in every single Gospel, including John, it was clearly an important story to the early church which was widely repeated (and Mark 14:9 would seem to reinforce this point). So there must have been different versions of this story knocking around, reflecting all the different oral traditions of it. This would explain why divergent versions appear in different Gospels. Other examples of a similar phenomenon are the different versions of the feeding of the 5,000 and the different versions of the parable of the talents/minas. As stories of this kind are told and retold they are changed in the telling. In the case of the anointing tale, Luke includes some details not found in the other Synoptics, such as the sinfulness of the woman, and gives the story a quite different moral, with Jesus' comments on it being entirely different. It may be that different sayings of Jesus got attached to the same story somewhere along the line, or it may be that entirely new "sayings" were attributed to Jesus at some point, or it may be that Luke simply made this dialogue up. (Or, of course, Mark invented his version, and Luke happens to have access to an older and more reliable source.) There's no real way to tell.
I suppose part of the point of your question is: given that Luke had Mark's account in front of him, why doesn't he use that? Presumably, whether Luke invented his unique details himself or got them from another source, he just preferred them. Why that might be is hard to tell. It's often pointed out that Luke appears to have no doctrine of the atonement, and does not portray Jesus' death as a sacrifice or indeed salvific at all, being merely the (human-caused) prelude to his (divinely-caused) resurrection. So it may be that Luke didn't like the idea, found in Mark's version of this story, of Jesus' body being prepared for burial before his death, something that focuses attention on his death. But that's just a guess.
I don't believe there's really an exact equivalent to the editions you mention. With biblical texts the "editions" are the different translations, which you'd normally find as complete Bibles, rather than as separate books with editorial apparatus as you would for other classical texts. So rather than looking for an edition with introduction and notes etc., you'd consult one of the standard biblical translations for the text and then look at another book for the equivalent of introduction and notes.
The usual translations favoured by scholars are the RSV/NRSV and perhaps also the REB and Jerusalem Bible. For the secondary literature, obviously there's a vast amount. Cambridge University Press has a very good series called "New Testament Theology", with each book focusing on just one text (or group of texts) of the New Testament, and these do pretty much the job you describe. It has another series called (amazingly) "Old Testament Theology", none of which I've read, but I would guess that they'd be much the same for those texts (and they seem to be more recent too).
There are undoubtedly other, similar series to these as well, but I'm not familiar with them. If you look in the theology section of your university library I'm sure you'll find shelves devoted to the various biblical books, and you will probably see similar-looking books appearing in each section. Those would be the ones to grab.
This is a rather brilliant question and I don't know the answer. I would guess that it is no, as it would be strange to have Christ's glorified body wholly present in the same room as his unglorified body, but really it's no odder than having his entire glorified body wholly present in many different rooms at the same time, as supposedly happens now. I have a PhD student who's working on transubstantiation so I'll ask her.
What he says is reasonable enough, but I would be suspicious of the attempt to make Jesus, Paul, Moses, Muhammad, and other religious founders into pre-modern feminists. Especially Paul! He says:
Jimmy Carter said:
I think exactly the same thing could be said, perhaps with more justice, of appealing to the Bible to justify the equality of men and women. Of course we would want the Bible to promote gender equality, at least if we're socially progressive Christians (as Carter is), but I don't think it really does, at least not consistently.
Actually, it is rather relevant.
I'll quote Kathpedia:
In short, transsubstantiation occurs during the eucharist, that is during a church service. Since Jesus wasn't holding any church service, there was no transsubstantiation. The whole eucharist derives from the bread and wine event during the last supper - which in itself was not yet a ritual. It only became so when the bread and wine event was ritually repeated during service.
But I'm sure a theologian can write a thesis proving otherwise. I'm just supplying the facts of the matter.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
You're saying the Last Supper wasn't a church service, or more strictly, a communion?
That's a rather strange take on it. What's your definition of a church service? Come to think of it, what's your definition of a church?
It's very strange, to me, that you would think that transubstantiation wouldn't have taken place then. But it would do at later commemorations of it?
That's a rather strange take on it. What's your definition of a church service? Come to think of it, what's your definition of a church?
It's very strange, to me, that you would think that transubstantiation wouldn't have taken place then. But it would do at later commemorations of it?
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Well, let's look at this, prima facie.
If transubstantiation didn't take place at the Last Supper (the most likely place for it to have happened if anywhere, imo), then Jesus was telling lies, or he was mistaken, or he's been misreported.
Which is it?
Or Jesus could have been talking metaphorically, I suppose. And then it does, literally, happen at later commemorations. But this seems a remarkably contrived scenario.
Still, I like Catholicism: once you can accept transubstantiation as literally happening, you can accept pretty much anything.
(Oh, will you look at that? My left foot has just turned into a bunch of daffodils!)
If transubstantiation didn't take place at the Last Supper (the most likely place for it to have happened if anywhere, imo), then Jesus was telling lies, or he was mistaken, or he's been misreported.
Which is it?
Or Jesus could have been talking metaphorically, I suppose. And then it does, literally, happen at later commemorations. But this seems a remarkably contrived scenario.
Still, I like Catholicism: once you can accept transubstantiation as literally happening, you can accept pretty much anything.
(Oh, will you look at that? My left foot has just turned into a bunch of daffodils!)
In oder to have a church service, you first need to have a church. Jesus wasn't holding a church service during the last supper: the church service is in fact the commemoration of the original event. Suggesting that Jesus was holding a commemorative service for an event he was at the time undertaking takes us into the absurd.
Secondly, this is not 'my take' on it. I quoted from official Catholic sources.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
I'd say there is a much stronger case for that being transubstantiation than what priests do during mass today, but am not inclined to accept either way.
Quite simple, really: transubstantiation is (according to Catholic definition) part of a ritual - specifically the ritual of commemoration of what Jesus did on the last supper. That event itself is not a ritual. It is the event on which the ritual is based. That is perhaps a subtle, but essential difference.
Now, as I indicated earlier, you might argue that transsubstantiation also occurs in the event itself. But not according to the Catholic definition of transsubstantiation.
But according to Catholic doctrine, the Mass is not a "commemoration" of the Last Supper. It is literally the same sacrificial offering of Christ as happened on the cross, as prefigured in the Last Supper. Calling it a mere "commemoration" is more Protestant.
Moreover, Catholic doctrine holds that all seven sacraments were instituted by Christ. In each case, the institution was itself an example of the thing being instituted. E.g. the wedding at Cana was a real wedding, Jesus' baptism in the Jordan was a real baptism, and so on. One would think, then, that the institution of the Mass should itself have been a real Mass.
In any case, it turns out the question has already been asked and answered. Thomas Aquinas addresses it here. The answer, you'll be pleased to know, is yes - transubstantiation did occur at the Last Supper, and the bread and wine did become the body and blood of Christ, even though Christ was right there. Moreover, Christ himself, his disciples, and even Judas, all received it. However, it was not Christ's glorified body which took the place of the bread on that occasion, because Christ had not yet become glorified. It was his natural body, present in two places at the same time.
Moreover, Catholic doctrine holds that all seven sacraments were instituted by Christ. In each case, the institution was itself an example of the thing being instituted. E.g. the wedding at Cana was a real wedding, Jesus' baptism in the Jordan was a real baptism, and so on. One would think, then, that the institution of the Mass should itself have been a real Mass.
In any case, it turns out the question has already been asked and answered. Thomas Aquinas addresses it here. The answer, you'll be pleased to know, is yes - transubstantiation did occur at the Last Supper, and the bread and wine did become the body and blood of Christ, even though Christ was right there. Moreover, Christ himself, his disciples, and even Judas, all received it. However, it was not Christ's glorified body which took the place of the bread on that occasion, because Christ had not yet become glorified. It was his natural body, present in two places at the same time.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Agent said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
I'm really not sure I understand the distinction you're referring to, tbh.
Still, it wouldn't be the first time that Catholic doctrine had defeated me.
Well, Catholic doctrine beats logic once again. Someone should update the Cathpedias then, I guess.
( I didn't state that the mass is a commemoration though, but the eucharist part of it, i.e. the sharing of the bread and wine. The habit of actually sharing both bread and wine has gone into disuse in modern times, actual bread being substituted with 'hosts', and wine only being consumed by the priest - and possibly attendants serving at the altar -, but not the congreagation at large.)
Great, thanks again!
It's amazing how many questions of all kinds Aquinas had the time to think and answer. These threads have taught me to appreciate him so much more!
Interesting piece in the Guardian about differing Orthodox and western church views on Easter as redemption http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...greek-debt-echo-ancient-disputes-about-easter
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Considering that the Passover was a highly symbolic meal, that the Lord's Supper is a highly symbolic meal also. To really understand the Lord' Supper I would suggest a Christian or anyone interested find an orthodox Jew and when it is time for the Passover to see if you can either participate in it or just watch.
Great, thanks again!
It's amazing how many questions of all kinds Aquinas had the time to think and answer. These threads have taught me to appreciate him so much more!
He was rather amazing. Remember, though, that he was building on the enormous tradition he inherited. For example, in this case he cites Jerome as calling Christ both the "eater and the eaten". The relevant letter of Jerome is here (second question). Though you'll note that it's a throwaway comment by Jerome here, far from the more detailed and logical use Aquinas makes of it. N.b. I rather like the fact that this letter of Jerome is basically the patristic equivalent of this very thread.
Yes, but he badly caricatures Anselm there. Anselm's view was different from penal substitution and was arguably not a forensic one at all.
_random_
Jewel Runner
Since it's my Good Friday:
Are you familiar with Death of God theology at all? What do you make of it, specifically of those forms that hold the crucifixion of Jesus brought about the actual death of God? The language used by Peter Rollins in the like is both intriguing and very unclear to me. Is there a primer on the subject you could recommend?
Are you familiar with Death of God theology at all? What do you make of it, specifically of those forms that hold the crucifixion of Jesus brought about the actual death of God? The language used by Peter Rollins in the like is both intriguing and very unclear to me. Is there a primer on the subject you could recommend?
I don't know of any primer, though I'm sure there must be one - although obviously this is a kind of theology that's very out of fashion these days. I know it mainly through Thomas Altizer, who I rather like, as it's such an audacious approach.
The idea, as I understand it, is that God was incarnate in Jesus in such a way that the whole of God was literally transformed into a human being. So after Jesus' birth, there was no God other than him. Obviously this is wildly unorthodox. Moreover, when Jesus died, that was it. God was dead and there was no more God. This is even more obviously unorthodox. It's a kind of reversal of Hegelianism, in that rather than becoming more spiritual and more manifest throughout history, God stops being spiritual, becomes physical, and then stops existing altogether. I see it also as a radically kenotic understanding of incarnation, in that when he became incarnate God literally gave up everything he had in his divinity, and took dying as a human being so seriously that he literally ceased to exist. So one might see it as having the same merits as kenotic christology, but more so - this is a Jesus who really has no advantages over anyone else at all, not even a resurrection to look forward to.
I think the reason it's gone out of fashion, though, is that it involves giving up too much of the usual view of God. This is a God who can cease to exist and who is not required for the continued existence of the universe - it seems that we can all get on perfectly OK without Altizer's God. It's also questionable how coherent the christology is, as it involves an immaterial entity being transformed into a material one. Trenton Merricks has argued for a (much less radical!) version of this same idea, and has been fairly widely criticised for it as it seems to be incoherent to suppose that such a thing could happen. Finally, of course, a theology with no resurrection or glorification of Christ, and no continued presence of Christ or the Holy Spirit to Christians today, and no Father to pray to, is a pretty weird theology. I would say it's weirder than Christian humanism, which also thinks God doesn't currently exist (in the traditional sense), because Christian humanism involves redefining what "God exists" really means and redefining prayer and all those other things. Whereas death of God theology doesn't redefine them - it says that God did once exist in the traditional sense, but now he doesn't any more. Even Don Cupitt would baulk at that, I think.
