82. 變質説Transubstantiation
作者: 史鮑爾 (R.C. Sproul)
譯者: 姚錦榮
摘自《神學入門》Essential Truths of the
Christian Faith，219-222頁, 更新傳道會出版
在教會生活當中，再也沒有比主的晚餐更嚴肅和更神聖的了。它又被稱作聖餐，因為耶穌與屬祂的人在其中相會 ，在這一刻，耶穌以一種獨特的方式與我們同在。
問題是，基督怎樣在主的晚餐中與我們同在呢？ 這問題在基督徒中有過無休止的爭辯，它不單是基督教與羅馬天主教間有的爭論，也是宗教改革運動的領袖們------包括馬丁路德、加爾文和慈運理等人 -------爭論不休的問題。
羅馬天主教主張變質說（ transubstantiation) ，認為在舉行彌撒時有神蹟發生，使得普通的餅與酒之實質變成了基督的身體和血。雖然從人的角度來看，這些餅與酒並沒有產生任何肉眼能見到的轉變，但羅馬天主教認為，即使餅與酒的形狀、味道和氣味都沒有改變，但它們已變成了基督的身體和血。
要明白 這個神蹟，我們必須先知道一點亞里士多德的哲學思想。用簡單的方式來解釋，亞里士多德乃是說，每個實物（獨立存在體）都是由實質 （substance) 與次要屬性（accidents) 組成的。實質乃一 物最深層的本質，可稱為該物的「料」（staff )，而次要屬性則是該物外在和表面的 樣子，即指我們所見、所感、所嗅、所嚐到有關該物的品質。
對亞里士多德來說，一個實物與它的次要屬性間的關係是不可分割的。比方說，橡樹是由它的實質和次要屬性結合後，才成為橡樹。若要某實物擁有它應有的實質，卻又同時擁有另一種實物的次要屬性，則非有神蹟發生不可。
（图從略，
實質= 本質
次要屬性= 可見的外在品質）
這就是變質說所謂的神蹟：聖餐所用的餅與酒， 其實質變成了基督的身體和血，而同時餅與酒的次要屬性卻保持不變。因此在彌撒中，我們有的是基督身體和血的實質，而沒有祂身體和血的次要屬性；有餅與酒的次要屬性，卻沒有餅和酒的實質。
在神蹟發生之前，餅與酒的實質和它們的次要層性原是並存的。
（图從略，
餅與變質說的神蹟發生前：餅與酒= 實質與次要屬性並存）
但在神蹟發生之後，我們則有基督的身體和血的實質，以及餅和酒的次要屬性。
比圍繞變質說更嚴重的爭論，乃是耶穌的人性問題。身體和血是屬於耶穌人性的範疇，而非祂神性的範疇。由於彌撒是在同一時間於世界不同地點舉行的儀式，因此問題是，人性的耶穌（身體和血）怎能在同一時間內出現在不同的地點? 無所不在的能力-----即在同一時間內，出現在不同地點 ------亦是神性的範疇 ，而非人性的範疇。如果要將人性的耶穌分派到世界各地去，便需要將祂的人性神性化。事實上，羅馬天主教和馬丁路德都主張，基督的神性（具有無所不在的屬性）可傳遞至基督的人性，使基督的人性（雖然通常侷限於一地）也能夠在同一時間出現在不同地點。
（图從略，
變質說的神蹟發生後：
實質 = 基督的身體和血
次要屬性 = 餅與酒）
但對加爾文與其他一些人來說，神性傳遞至人性的說法，有違迦克墩大會（主後四五一年）的信條，該會議確認基督的神人二 性的合一是不可混合、不可混淆、不可分離、不可分裂的，每一種本性都包含它本身特有的屬性。對於加爾文和大多數宗教改革者來說 ，變質說是這類異端的一種形式。
總結
1 .變質說乃是指，在彌撒中，餅和酒神蹟地變成基督的身體和血，但在外表上卻仍舊是餅和酒。
2 . 實質乃是指一實物的本質，而次要屬性則是指它外在可見的品質。
3 . 變質說需要將神的屬性加諸基督的人性，使基督的身體和血能在同一時間出現在不同地點。
4 . 加爾文否定天主教的變質說，認為它違背迦克墩大會的信條。
思考經文：
可 14 ：22-25
；林前11:23-26
82.
THE LORD’S SUPPER
Martin
Luther rejected the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, that is,
that the Communion bread and wine are changed into the actual body and blood of
Christ. Luther saw no need for this doctrine. Rather, he agreed that Christ’s
presence did not replace the presence of bread and wine but was added to the
bread and wine. Luther maintained that the body and blood of Christ are somehow
present in, under, and through the elements of bread and wine. It is customary
to call the Lutheran view consubstantiation because the substance of the body
and blood of Christ are present with (con) the substance of bread and wine.
Lutheran theologians, however, do not like the term consubstantiation and
protest that it is understood in terms that are too closely associated with the
Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
But
it is clear that Luther insisted on the real physical and substantial presence
of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. He repeatedly cited Jesus’ words of
institution, “this is My body,” to prove his point. Luther would not allow the
verb is to be taken in a figurative or representative sense. Luther also
adopted the doctrine of the communication of attributes by which the divine
attribute of omnipresence was communicated to the human nature of Jesus, making
it possible for His body and blood to be present at more than one place at the
same time.
Zwingli
and others argued that Jesus’ words “this is My body” meant really “This
represents My body.” Jesus frequently used the verb to be in such a figurative
sense. He said, “I am the door,” “I am the true vine,” etc. Zwingli and others
argued that Christ’s body is not present in actual substance at the Lord’s
Supper. The supper is a memorial only, with Christ’s presence no different from
His normal presence through the Holy Spirit.
John
Calvin, on the other hand, when he debated with Rome and Luther, denied the
“substantial” presence of Christ at the Lord’s Supper. Yet when he debated with
the Anabaptists, who reduced the Lord’s Supper to a mere memorial, he insisted
on the “substantial” presence of Christ.
On
the surface it seems that Calvin was caught in a blatant contradiction.
However, upon closer scrutiny we see that Calvin used the term substantial in
two different ways. When he addressed Roman Catholics and Lutherans, he used
the term substantial to mean “physical.” He denied the physical presence of
Christ in the Lord’s Supper. When he addressed the Anabaptists, he insisted on
the term substantial in the sense of “real.” Calvin thus argued that Christ was
really or truly present in the Lord’s Supper, though not in a physical sense.
Because
Calvin rejected the idea of the communication of attributes from the divine
nature to the human nature, he was accused of separating and dividing the two
natures of Christ and committing the Nestorian heresy, which was condemned at
the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. Calvin replied that he was not separating
the two natures but distinguishing between them.
The
human nature of Jesus is presently localized in heaven. It remains in perfect
union with His divine nature. Though the human nature is contained in one
place, the person of Christ is not so contained because His divine nature still
has the power of omnipresence. Jesus said, “I am with you always, even to the
end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). Despite its limitations, and at the risk of
being misunderstood, we give the following picture to illustrate what we are
saying.
(see
next page)
Calvin
taught that though Christ’s body and blood remain in heaven, they are
spiritually “made present” to us by Jesus’ omnipresent divine nature.1 Wherever
the divine nature of Christ is present, He is truly present. This is consistent
with Jesus’ own teaching that He was “going away” yet would abide with us. When
we meet Him at the Lord’s Supper we commune with Him. By meeting us in His
divine presence, we are brought into His human presence mystically, because His
divine nature is never separated from His human nature. The divine nature leads
us to the ascended Christ, and in the Lord’s Supper we have a taste of heaven.
Summary
1. Luther taught that the body and blood of
Christ were added in, under, and through the elements of bread and wine.
2.
Zwingli taught the memorial view of the Lord’s Supper.
3.
Calvin denied the physical presence of Christ at the Lord’s Supper, but
affirmed the real presence of Christ.
4. Jesus’ human nature is localized in heaven;
His divine nature is omnipresent.
1 Calvin, Institutes, bk. IV, 2:XVII.
Biblical passages for reflection:
Matthew
26:26-29 1 Corinthians 10:13-17 1 Corinthians 11:23-34
