Lord's Day Questions with proof texts
Link to audio recording of LD 29 Part 1
Link to audio recording of LD 29 Part 2
"Transubstantiation in the Catholic Tradition" - Brett Salkeld
NotebookLM Summary of Salkeld on Transubstantiation
Summary (NotebookLM)
Lord's Day 29 addresses the theological debate surrounding the Lord's Supper. It refutes the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, arguing that Christ's words "This is my body" are sacramental metaphors. The commentary supports a symbolic interpretation, emphasizing the spiritual communion with Christ offered through the sacrament and highlighting the analogy between earthly sustenance and spiritual nourishment. Numerous scriptural passages and quotes from early church fathers are used to bolster this argument.
Overview of Chapter:
This section of Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, delves into the complex theological question of the Lord's Supper. The central issue revolves around the interpretation of Christ's words, "This is my body," and "This is my blood." The text systematically refutes the doctrines of transubstantiation (Catholic) and consubstantiation (Lutheran), advocating instead for a sacramental understanding. This view sees the bread and wine as signs and pledges that represent and convey the spiritual reality of Christ's sacrifice and the believer's union with him.
II. Main Themes
Rejection of Literal Interpretations (Transubstantiation & Consubstantiation): The document argues strongly against literal interpretations of Christ's words that would imply a physical transformation of the elements (transubstantiation) or a co-existence of Christ's body and blood in, with, or under the elements (consubstantiation). These views are considered additions to and distortions of Christ's simple words, and ultimately, a perversion.
Transubstantiation: The text criticizes the Catholic view of a complete change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, with only the "accidents" remaining. It states, "The Papists imagine that by virtue of the consecration the bread is changed, or converted into the body of Christ, the accidents only remaining. This change they call transubstantiation."
Consubstantiation: It also criticizes the Lutheran view that the body and blood of Christ are "co-existent" with the bread and wine, stating, "There are others again, who contend that there is a consubstantiation, or co-existence of the body of Christ in, or with the bread."
Sacramental Metonymy: The preferred interpretation is that the language used in the Lord's Supper is sacramental, employing metonymy (a figure of speech where one thing is referred to by something associated with it). This is a common understanding in the Scriptures. It is argued that the bread and wine are called the body and blood of Christ because they are signs and seals of his sacrifice and of believers' spiritual participation.
"For in all these instances the name of the thing signified is attributed to the sign by a sacramental metonymy."
Spiritual Eating: The emphasis is on a spiritual communion with Christ, received by faith. The physical act of eating the bread and drinking the wine is a means of receiving and strengthening the believer's spiritual union with Christ and all of his benefits.
"The true sense and interpretation then of the words of Christ, This is my body, which is given for you, is, this bread which I break and give unto you is the sign of my body, which was delivered unto death for you, and is a certain seal of your union with me, so that whosoever shall believe and eat this bread, does, in a certain sense, really and truly eat my body."
The Nature of Sacraments: A significant portion of the text is dedicated to explaining the nature of sacraments in general and how they function. Sacraments are seen as:
Signs and Seals: They are visible signs and pledges of invisible grace, corresponding to the promises of the gospel.
"The gospel no where promises any corporal or oral eating... sacraments declare, exhibit, confirm and seal the same thing which the word promises."
Spiritual: The things signified are not received or understood corporally, but spiritually. "The nature of all sacraments requires that the signs be taken corporally, while the things signified must be understood spiritually."
Analogical: There is a correspondence between the visible signs and the spiritual realities they signify.
Critique of Idolatry: The view of the Eucharist advanced in the text sees the concept of the physical presence of Christ in the bread or wine as leading to the possibility of idolatry because then, God would be worshipped through a physical object and not in spirit and truth.
"If Christ be in the bread in a corporal manner, and be given by the hands of the minister, then forgiveness of sins ought to be sought from the hands of God on account of that which is in the bread... This is that shocking idolatry which is practiced in the Popish mass..."
Importance of Remembrance: The Lord's Supper is seen as a memorial of Christ's sacrifice, as in Christ's words "Do this in remembrance of me." This emphasis on remembrance underscores the spiritual nature of the sacrament, pointing to Christ's historical sacrifice.
"Remembrance is not of things bodily present, but absent. Christ instituted this sacrament to his remembrance."
III. Key Arguments and Facts
Biblical Interpretation: The text bases its arguments on careful interpretation of biblical passages, particularly the words of institution ("This is my body...") and other relevant passages from John and Paul.
The words "This is my body" are argued to be a figurative manner of speech, not to be taken literally (especially in light of John 6:62-63 which explains the spiritual nature of eating the flesh of Christ).
The text emphasizes that the cup is called the "New Testament," not the actual New Testament, indicating a symbolic meaning.
Arguments Against Transubstantiation:Christ broke bread, not his body.
The bread was not given to death for us, but Christ's body was.
The words of institution don't use terms like "under the forms" or "change into," rather the words are "This is my body."
Transubstantiation destroys the correspondence between the sign and the thing signified.
Arguments Against Consubstantiation:Christ's body is in heaven after the ascension; therefore, it cannot be "in, with, or under" the bread.
The words of Christ are "This is my body", not "in, with, and under this bread is my body".
The illustrations of a purse with money, or a cask of wine do not work, because in those instances, the content is clear, while the nature of Christ in the bread is not.
The doctrine is based on the "ubiquity" of Christ, which this text rejects.
Arguments for the Sacramental View:The nature of sacraments is to be symbolic and spiritual.
This interpretation is supported by Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the rule of faith.
It honors the analogical nature of sacraments, emphasizing how bread strengthens physical life, and Christ strengthens spiritual life.
Testimonies of the Fathers: The text quotes numerous Church Fathers like Augustine, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Chrysostom, to support its interpretation. These sources also use figurative language to explain the Eucharist, and emphasize a spiritual eating.
The Nature of Christ's Body: The text emphasizes that Christ's human nature is finite. It argues that His ascension to heaven means his body is not physically present in the bread, as is the Catholic and Lutheran view.
IV. Quotes Illustrating Key Concepts:
On Sacramental Metonymy: "It is in the same way that we must understand Paul, when he says, This is my body which is broken for you, because he attributes the property of the sign (which is to be broken) to the thing signified."
On Spiritual Eating: "The true sense and interpretation then of the words of Christ, This is my body... is, this bread... is the sign of my body... and is a certain seal of your union with me, so that whosoever shall believe and eat this bread, does, in a certain sense, really and truly eat my body."
On the Nature of Sacraments: "The nature of all sacraments requires that the signs be taken corporally, while the things signified must be understood spiritually; and that the things which are visible are not the things signified, being only the signs and pledges of them."
On Remembrance: "Remembrance is not of things bodily present, but absent. Christ instituted this sacrament to his remembrance."
On the Body of Christ: "The body of Christ was born of the Virgin; bread is made out of meal. It is not, therefore, really the body of Christ."
On the Rejection of Consubstantiation: "For neither is the bread by itself, nor the bread with the body of Christ concealed in it, properly the body of Christ; as a purse, whether full or empty, is not properly and without a figure of speech called money."
V. Implications
This text emphasizes a Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper, emphasizing the spiritual nature of the sacrament, the importance of faith, and the symbolic meaning of the elements. This has implications for how believers approach the Lord's Supper - as a moment of spiritual communion, of remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice and a pledge of their union with Christ. It's also a refutation of both Catholic and Lutheran views, and calls them a form of idolatry.
This document from "LD29.txt" provides a thorough explanation of a complex theological issue, offering a nuanced interpretation of the Lord's Supper. It shows the historical importance of this theological debate and how the author understands and defends his Reformed point of view.
Timeline of Main Events and Ideas
Ancient Times - Early Church:
Early Church Fathers, such as Augustine, Cyprian, and Chrysostom, used figurative language when discussing the Eucharist. They emphasized a spiritual understanding of partaking in Christ, rather than a literal or physical one.
Emphasis on remembrance and memorial aspects of the breaking of bread as a sacrifice for Christ.
Later Development of Doctrine:
Papists (Roman Catholics): Developed the doctrine of transubstantiation, arguing that the bread and wine are converted into the actual body and blood of Christ (the substance or essence changes while the accidents or appearance remains the same), through consecration. This view is said to be a literal interpretation of the scriptures. Consecration must follow a strict formula, including exact verbage.
Ubiquitarians (primarily Lutherans): Defended the idea of consubstantiation, arguing that the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine, also a literal interpretation of scriptures. This view is also presented as being consistent with the ubiquity of Christ's divine nature.
These two views were described as adding or changing the meaning of Christ's words.
Reformation Era
The text rejects both transubstantiation and consubstantiation, claiming they are not literal interpretations.
The text proposes that Christ’s words "This is my body" are to be understood sacramentally and figuratively. This means that the bread and wine are signs of the body and blood of Christ, not the literal body and blood itself.
The text emphasizes the importance of remembering Christ's sacrifice and of spiritual communion with him through faith.
Discussion and refutation of arguments of both sides, using scripture, logic, and appeals to the early Church fathers
Focus on the nature of sacraments. Emphasis on the idea that in all sacraments, the signs (like water in baptism or bread and wine in the Lord's Supper) are earthly and visible, while the things they represent are spiritual and not physically present. Sacraments are seals and confirm our union with Christ.
Arguments Against Transubstantiation & Consubstantiation
Christ's body is finite and in heaven. It cannot be present in multiple locations on Earth simultaneously.
Scripture calls the bread bread, not merely an illusion.
The bread is a sign, a representation of the body of Christ, not the literal body.
Emphasis on the spiritual nature of the communion with Christ. Faith is what connects us with Christ during the sacrament, not any physical change in the elements.
Transubstantiation and consubstantiation were seen to be inconsistent with the nature of sacraments and with other aspects of Christian teaching, including the ascension of Christ, his human nature, and the nature of worship.
These views are claimed to lead to idolatry, by focusing on physical elements of the Supper instead of Christ's sacrifice and the promises of grace that it represents.
Emphasis on Spiritual Communion
The Lord's Supper is a spiritual meal, nourishing the soul.
The faithful are joined with Christ by the Holy Spirit through the sacrament.
Emphasis is placed on partaking in Christ by faith. The sacrament is a visible seal or pledge of this spiritual union.
The bread and wine provide a visible pledge that we truly partake in Christ's body and blood through the Spirit and that we receive the full benefit of Christ's sacrifice.
The Lord's Supper serves as a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice and our own.
By consuming the bread and wine with faith, it is seen that we affirm our union with Christ in his sacrifice.
Cast of Characters
Augustine: An influential early Church Father. The text references his teachings on the use of figurative language in Scripture and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist, especially distinguishing it from literal interpretations.
Cyprian: Another early Church Father. The text includes his writings on the symbolic use of the cup in the Lord's Supper and the joining of the divine and human through the Eucharist, also describing how this relates to our union with Christ.
Chrysostom: An early Church Father cited for his figurative language when describing the Eucharist, comparing it to fondling a loved one rather than literal eating of the flesh. Also included as a witness for the idea that Christ ate and drank during the first supper as an example to his disciples, and not that he was actually eating himself.
Irenaeus: Early Church Father, whose views are mentioned in regards to the nature of the bread and wine in the Eucharist being both of earthly and heavenly origin, thereby refuting the purely physical change in transubstantiation.
Tertullian: Early Church Father. Quoted as saying the bread in the supper is a "figure" of Christ's body, not the body itself.
Clement of Alexandria: Early Church Father, whose teachings on the Lord's Supper are invoked to support the view that to drink Christ's blood is to be made a partaker of his immortality, which again refutes a more physical interpretation of the supper.
Council of Nice: An early church council, whose canons are invoked as support for symbolic representation of the Lord's Supper.
Basil: An early Church Father, quoted for his view that in the Eucharist, we have the "antitypes" of the holy body and blood of Christ, supporting a more symbolic interpretation.
Hilary: An early Church Father, quoted on the effect of partaking in the Eucharist being that we are in Christ and Christ in us, which is taken as a spiritual rather than physical idea.
Gregory Nazianzus: An early Church Father, quoted for his view that the Eucharist contains "antitypes" of the body and blood of Christ, reinforcing a symbolic interpretation of the Supper.
Ambrose: An early Church Father, whose writings on the Eucharist are presented to support a more figurative meaning, highlighting it as a representation of Christ's sacrifice, not a literal consumption.
Theodoret: Early Church Father quoted as saying Christ changed the names of the signs in the Lord's Supper, thereby giving honor to the signs with the title of body and blood, not changing their nature, which supports the symbolic or sacramental understanding.
Macarius (the Monk): Early church figure whose view of the Eucharist is presented as a "type" or "figure" of the body of Christ, who is received spiritually in the Lord's Supper.
Lombard: A medieval theologian. The text mentions his exposition of different views on transubstantiation and consubstantiation.
Guitmund: A medieval theologian. The text mentions him attributing the view of consubstantiation (or 'impanation') to Berengarius.
Walrame: A medieval theologian (the text calls him the originator of consubstantiation) against whom Anselm wrote.
Rupert: A medieval theologian. The text mentions him as another of the early defenders of the consubstantiation view, shortly after Guitmund.
Peter of Cambray: A cardinal who lived around 1416, who was said to favor consubstantiation over transubstantiation, before the Church of Rome ruled otherwise.
Luther: The text describes how Luther came to accept a view of consubstantiation, which he had initially seen as a non-essential article of faith. The text then outlines how his views on the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper would come to be a cause for future division.
James Andreae: A theologian whose views on the Lord's Supper are shown to be inconsistent and contradictory, and his arguments used to show the weaknesses of consubstantiation.
Eutychians: An early heretical group who believed that the divine and human natures of Christ were mingled into a single new nature, thereby having some similarities with the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Schwenckfelders: Followers of Kaspar von Ossig Schwenkfeld, who was seen as a mystic whose views were similar to those of the Quakers.
What arguments refute transubstantiation and consubstantiation doctrines?
Arguments Against Transubstantiation:
Literal Interpretation of Christ's Words: The doctrine of transubstantiation is based on a literal interpretation of Christ's words, "This is my body," claiming that the bread and wine are converted into the actual body and blood of Christ. However, the sources argue that if these words were to be understood literally, it would lead to contradictions of Christian faith. For example, if the bread were the body of Christ in a proper sense, then it would follow that it was crucified for us, which is not the case.
Change in Substance: The idea of transubstantiation involves a change in the substance of the bread and wine, with only the accidents remaining. However, Christ does not say that the bread was made or being made his body, but rather that the bread is his body. The sources argue that Christ's words, understood literally, do not allow for a change in substance. The view that the bread is changed into the body of Christ is an invention.
The Nature of Sacraments: According to the sources, a sacrament consists of two parts, the sign and the thing signified. Transubstantiation, by changing the substance of the bread and wine, removes the sign from the eucharist. In addition, the signs in the eucharist should confirm faith in heavenly things, but a mere shadow of bread and wine cannot do this.
Analogy between Sign and Thing Signified: The doctrine of transubstantiation destroys the analogy between the sign and the thing signified. For example, bread nourishes the body, and the body of Christ nourishes the soul. However, the mere accidents of bread cannot maintain this analogy.
Scriptural Basis: The idea of transubstantiation cannot be supported by scripture. Christ does not say that his body is contained under the form of bread and wine, and to say so is a perversion of his words.
Idolatry: Transubstantiation leads to idolatry by directing thoughts and affections to the bread.
Arguments Against Consubstantiation:
Addition to Christ's Words: Consubstantiation adds to Christ’s words, proposing that his body is "in, with, and under" the bread, which Christ did not say. The true simplicity and property of words is that to which nothing is added, taken away, or changed.
Literal Sense of Words: The literal sense of Christ's words is "this bread is my body", not "in, with, and under this bread is my body". The sources argue that consubstantialists do not retain the literal and true meaning of Christ's words, as they substitute their own words in place of Christ's.
Two Substances in One Place: Consubstantiation proposes the co-existence of two substances in the same place, which the sources describe as an absurdity.
Ubiquity: Some supporters of consubstantiation appeal to the doctrine of ubiquity, arguing that Christ's body is everywhere present. However, the sources note that the ubiquity of Christ's body is not affirmed in the scriptures, and that it is a quality of the Godhead alone.
Misinterpretation of Christ's Words: Consubstantialists change the meaning of "this" in the phrase "this is my body," which should only refer to the bread, to also refer to the body of Christ concealed within the bread.
Analogies Fail: Analogies used to support consubstantiation, such as a purse of money or a cask of wine, are not similar to the bread of the eucharist because it is not apparent that the body of Christ is in the bread as it is that the money is in the purse.
Scriptural Basis: Consubstantiation cannot be supported by scripture. The words of Christ, interpreted correctly, indicate that the bread is the body of Christ in a mystical or sacramental sense, not a literal one.
In summary, both transubstantiation and consubstantiation are rejected by the sources for adding to or changing the literal and true meaning of Christ's words, for misinterpreting the nature of sacraments, for failing to adhere to the rules of Biblical interpretation, and for leading to faulty doctrines and even idolatry. Instead, the sources propose that the bread and wine are signs of the body and blood of Christ that signify the spiritual nourishment that Christians receive through faith, and by partaking in communion.
How does Augustine define the proper interpretation of scripture?
According to the sources, Augustine provides a rule for determining whether a Scriptural phrase should be taken in a proper or figurative sense. This rule is applied to the specific instance of eating the flesh of Christ, and the rule itself states:
A Scriptural phrase should be taken in a proper sense if it can be properly referred to some moral duty, or be made to harmonize with the true faith.
If a Scriptural phrase cannot be properly referred to some moral duty or be made to harmonize with the true faith, then it should be understood figuratively.
Augustine uses the example of Christ's statement: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood you have no life in you". He explains that because this statement, taken literally, would seem to enjoin a shameful crime, it must be understood figuratively. Instead, this passage teaches that believers must partake of the passion of Christ and remember that his flesh was wounded and pierced for them.
Additionally, Augustine emphasizes that sacraments have a correspondence with the things they signify and often receive the names of those things. He states that, "the sacrament of the body of Christ, is, after a certain manner, the body of Christ, and as the sacrament of the blood of Christ is his blood, so the sacrament of faith is faith". He also notes that in sacraments, "one thing is seen, and another is understood". What is seen has a corporal form, while what is understood has a spiritual benefit.
In summary, Augustine's approach to interpreting scripture involves considering whether a passage can be understood in a way that aligns with moral duty and true faith, and if not, it must be understood figuratively. He also emphasizes that sacraments, though they use physical signs, point to a spiritual reality.
What are the four types of arguments used to support the sacramental view?
The sources outline four types of arguments used to support the sacramental view of the Lord's Supper, which posits that the bread and wine are signs or symbols of Christ's body and blood rather than the literal body and blood. These arguments are used to refute the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, and are as follows:
Arguments from the text and circumstances of the institution of the Lord's Supper. These arguments focus on the specific words and events surrounding the first Lord's Supper to demonstrate that a literal interpretation of Christ's words is not possible.
The human nature of Christ was at the table at the first supper, not in the bread, and is now in heaven. Thus, it cannot be corporally in the bread.
Christ did not take and break his body, but the bread.
The body of Christ was born of the Virgin, while bread is made of meal, and therefore they cannot be the same.
Christ said "This is my body" of the visible bread and "This cup is the New Testament in my blood" of the visible cup, therefore, the literal interpretation of transubstantiation and consubstantiation are not supported by scripture.
The body of Christ was delivered to death and crucified, which cannot be said of the bread.
The cup is the New Testament in the same way that the bread is the body of Christ.
If the bread were the literal body of Christ, then at the first supper, the blood would have been separated from the body before Christ died, which is impossible.
Christ himself ate and drank the bread and wine, so it cannot have been his literal body and blood.
Remembrance is of things absent, not present, and Christ instituted the supper as a remembrance.
The celebration of the supper must continue until Christ comes again, implying that he is not yet bodily present in the bread.
The first supper was not the literal body of Christ, and so it is not now either.
Arguments from the nature of sacraments. These arguments focus on the nature of sacraments as signs of spiritual realities, and how this definition contradicts both transubstantiation and consubstantiation.
The language used in the Lord’s Supper is figurative and sacramental, attributing the name of the thing signified to the sign.
Sacraments do not signify the corporal presence of the things in the signs, but a correspondence between them and the sealing of the things by their signs, as well as a union of the two in their proper use.
In all sacraments, the signs are taken corporally, while the things signified must be understood spiritually.
Sacramental phrases must be understood sacramentally. Christ himself uses a sacramental phrase, “Do this in remembrance of me”.
The supper can only seal what the gospel promises, and the gospel does not promise a corporal or oral eating of Christ's flesh.
A corporal presence of Christ under the bread is repugnant to the character of sacraments, because it is neither the sign nor the thing signified.
The sacraments are visible signs, and thus the invisible flesh of Christ cannot be a sacrament, which requires an external sign.
The communion promised in the word, and sealed in the sacraments, is spiritual not corporal.
All sacraments of the Old and New Testament signify the same thing and the same spiritual communion with Christ.
Arguments from the analogy of the articles of faith. These arguments show that the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation are inconsistent with other core Christian doctrines.
The human nature of Christ is finite and cannot be in many places at once.
Christ ascended into heaven, and therefore his body is not on earth, including in the bread.
The communion of saints with Christ is spiritual, not corporal.
The eating of Christ is the same as his dwelling in us, which is spiritual, not physical.
Forgiveness of sins should be sought from God because of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and not for the sake of Christ in the bread.
Christ is not to be worshipped in the supper with our thoughts turned to the bread.
Arguments from parallel passages of scripture. These arguments use other scriptural texts to interpret the meaning of the Lord's Supper and demonstrate that the language used in it is similar to other metaphorical language in the Bible.
Similar phrases in scripture, in which names or effects of things signified are attributed to signs, have the same interpretation, such as circumcision being the covenant of God and the Passover lamb being the Lord's Passover.
The blood of Christ is the New Testament in the same sense that the cup is, which is sacramentally.
The bread is the communion of the body of Christ in the same sense that it is his body, that is, sacramentally.
The words of Christ in John 6 reject the eating of his flesh with the mouth, which establishes a spiritual manducation.
To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ is to believe in him, dwell in him, and have him dwell in us.
The eating and drinking in the Lord's Supper are spiritual, since the same spiritual communion is common to all believers in both the Old and New Testaments.
These four types of arguments are presented to support the sacramental view of the Lord's Supper and to counter the interpretations of transubstantiation and consubstantiation. They emphasize the symbolic nature of the bread and wine as signs that point to a spiritual reality.
Why does Christ use sacramental language?
Christ uses sacramental language for two main reasons: to teach through analogy and to assure believers of their participation in Christ's body and blood. The text explains that Christ attributes the names of the things signified (his body and blood) to the signs (bread and wine) because of this analogy and to confirm the spiritual benefits of partaking in the sacrament.
Analogy: There is a correspondence between the bread and wine, and Christ's body and blood.
Just as bread and wine sustain physical life, Christ's body and blood are the true nourishment for the soul leading to eternal life.
Similar to how bread and wine are received by the mouth, the body and blood of Christ are received by faith, which is the "mouth of the soul".
Bread is not consumed whole, but broken, which is analogous to how Christ’s body was sacrificed and broken on the cross.
Just as bread and wine only benefit those who have an appetite for them, the body and blood of Christ are received by those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.
As many grains make one loaf, and many grapes are pressed into wine, believers become one body with Christ and with one another through the sacrament.
Assurance: The use of sacramental language serves to confirm the faith of believers.
The signs of bread and wine declare that the sacrifice of Christ is complete and effective for salvation.
These signs assure believers that they are as certainly fed with the body and blood of Christ as they are certain that they receive the bread and wine.
This language is a pledge that all of Christ’s sufferings and obedience are as certainly for the believer as if they had suffered and done all in their own person.
The sacraments act as a visible sign and pledge that believers are truly partakers of Christ’s body and blood through the Holy Spirit, just as they receive the tokens of the bread and wine by mouth in remembrance of Christ.
In summary, Christ's use of sacramental language is not meant to be taken literally, as in the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, but is intended to use the visible, tangible signs of bread and wine to represent spiritual truths and to assure believers of their participation in Christ’s sacrifice.