John Calvin’s Mystical Eucharist vs. Logic, the Church Fathers, and Holy Scripture
Either Jesus’ body and blood are
substantially present or not. If they are, then they are really there! One can’t deny that the elements are transformed (Catholic view) or joined by the true Body and Blood (Lutheranism) and still hold that there is substantial or “real” presence. Why?: because it is an internal contradiction. Calvin is saying that Jesus is simultaneously there and not there.
Miracles are not irrational. The supernatural is not irrational; it simply transcends natural laws governing matter or is outside of them (as spirit, since science and naturalism deals with matter). It will do no good to simply say, “it is above our understanding, and so we will construct irrational scenarios and not try to make them coherent. It’s a mystery….”
If Jesus isn’t really (substantially) present in the Eucharist, then the Calvinist Eucharist is scarcely distinguishable from the omnipresence of God or Zwinglianism. How is it particularly special or unique?
How is saying that Jesus is “mystically” (but not substantially) present logically distinguishable from pure Zwinglian symbolism, or how this is a miracle at all, because Jesus is already “mystically present” at all times and even lives within us, in the indwelling. Why should we receive a spiritual presence that we already
have through omnipresence and the indwelling?
The Protestant Reformed Confessions hold that Jesus Christ is physically present in the Lord’s Supper, but in such a way that He remains at the right hand of God the Father in His resurrected, glorified, ascended body.
But this is nonsensical. It’s a self-contradiction:
1. Jesus is physically present in the Supper.
2. But He is physically present at the right hand of God.
3. We are physically present with Christ in the Supper.
4. But we are physically present with Christ at the right hand of God.
Contradictions:
1 vs. 2,
3 vs. 4,
2 vs. 3, and
1 vs. 4.
Why take this view but oppose the view that Jesus is sacramentally present in the Supper? If we want to restrict ourselves solely to the literal post-Resurrection body of Christ, then we can’t say that is “physically present” in the Supper while simultaneously at the right hand of God, because that is a contradiction, as much as it would be a contradiction to say that Jesus was physically present in Jerusalem during His crucifixion, but simultaneously at the Sea of Galilee.
But the
Catholic view is
not contradictory because the miracle of transubstantiation is an additional mode of presence of Jesus that is physical in a way approximating spiritual omnipresence (similar in a sense to His post-Resurrection body when He appeared to His disciples and seemed to walk through walls).
We are not with Jesus in heaven yet, but He is sacramentally and eucharistically with us, by the miracle of the transformation of the elements. In other words, one has to posit the additional miracle of transubstantiation (or at least consubstantiation) in order to have the physical presence.
1. Jesus is physically present in the Supper.
2. But He is physically present at the right hand of God.
3. We are physically present with Christ in the Supper.
4. But we are physically present with Christ at the right hand of God.
Contradictions:
1 vs. 2,
3 vs. 4,
2 vs. 3, and
1 vs. 4.
Why take this view but oppose the view that Jesus is sacramentally present in the Supper? If we want to restrict ourselves solely to the literal post-Resurrection body of Christ, then we can’t say that is “physically present” in the Supper while simultaneously at the right hand of God, because that is a contradiction, as much as it would be a contradiction to say that Jesus was physically present in Jerusalem during His crucifixion, but simultaneously at the Sea of Galilee.
But the
Catholic view is
not contradictory because the miracle of transubstantiation is an additional mode of presence of Jesus that is physical in a way approximating spiritual omnipresence (similar in a sense to His post-Resurrection body when He appeared to His disciples and seemed to walk through walls).
We are not with Jesus in heaven yet, but He is sacramentally and eucharistically with us, by the miracle of the transformation of the elements. In other words, one has to posit the additional miracle of transubstantiation (or at least consubstantiation) in order to have the physical presence.
If one can believe that we are actually transported to heaven to meet Jesus there, why is it so difficult to believe that He can substantially be present here under the appearances of bread and wine? Both scenarios involve something that transcends our senses, and must be believed on faith. But one seems to involve a logical contradiction, whereas the other does not.
We say it is the accidents (characteristics of bread and wine) that are spiritual and not what they appear to be. The Reformed Protestants say, “He is truly here physically, but you are not physically eating His body.” Catholics say, “He is truly here physically, and you are physically eating His body, even though it appears to be merely bread and wine.”
by Dave Armstrong - ebook
