I need help (Greek Scholars please help!)

[Reformed1]

Ok, I'm studying the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass right now. As we all know, Catholics believe that when Jesus said "This is my blood" that he meant that it was really his blood in the wine, hence the first instance of transubstantiation. Now, The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

"the present form of the participle "eckynnomenon" in conjunction with the present "estin" establishes the first point. For it is a grammatical rule of the New Testament Greek that, when the double present is used (that is, in both the participle and the finite verb, as is the case here), the time denoted is not the distant or near future, but strictly the present."

Eric Svendsen dealt with this issue a little but not in the sens of a "double present." Can any of the Greek scholars help me out here? I have not been able to find anyone who deals with this point that the Encyclopedia brings up. Any help is appreciated!

 

[doulosChristou]

As we all know, Catholics believe that when Jesus said "This is my blood" that he meant that it was really his blood in the wine, hence the first instance of transubstantiation.

Refuted in the very next verse as Jesus refers to the same contents of the cup as "this fruit of the vine".

"For it is a grammatical rule of the New Testament Greek that, when the double present is used (that is, in both the participle and the finite verb, as is the case here), the time denoted is not the distant or near future, but strictly the present."

Strange. Perhaps they are confusing this with the rules governing a periphrastic particple (which this is obviously not).

On temporal particples in general, Wallace says of the Present Participle:

"The present participle is normally contemporaneous in time to the action of the main verb. This is especially so when it is related to a present tense main verb (often, in fact, it follows a present imperative as a participle of means). But this parti­ciple can be broadly antecedent to the time of the main verb, especially if it is articular (and thus adjectival; cf. Mark 6:14; Eph 2:13). As well, the present participle is occasionally sub­sequent in a sense to the time of the main verb. This is so when the participle has a telic (purpose) or result flavor to it (cf. Eph 2:14). But as Robertson points out, 'It is not strictly true that here the present participle means future or subse­quent time. It is only that the purpose goes on coincident with the verb and beyond.'"

A. T. Robertson says with respect to our Mat 26:28 participle:

"A prophetic present passive participle. The act is symbolized by the ordinance."

 

[Reformed1]

Thank you doulos. That was helpful. They cite Fr. Blass "Grammatik des N.T. Griechisch" as their source. I saw that from Robertson earlier, but he didn't expound on what a "prophetic" present passive participle is. I don't know much about Greek. I've been trying to teach myself. Thanks though, that was helpful. Is there anyway you can tell me what a prophetic present passive participle is? Thanks.