J
JDGaney
Guest
I believe we truly tangibly eat Jesus’ Flesh, not just a symbol… but why do we believe in Transubstantiation? Not Consubstantiation? As Lutherans and Anglicans do?
- Status
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
Because Jesus said, this is my flesh, this is my blood. Good enough for me.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
The basic answer is because that is what has been revealed to the Church to whom Christ promised to reveal all truth.
One aspect I like to recognize is that Christ held up what was bread in appearance and said, “This is my body, which is given up.” So not only did he say it was his body, but that it was the object of sacrifice. So what did Christ give up on the Cross? His body.
Also, we see the changing of water in to wine as an outward sign of the unseen change in the Eucharist.
In consubstantiation, the idea is that Christ’s body exists along side common bread and wine. But those ordinary things were not given up on the cross.
For more info, see Substances: Comparing the Catholic and Lutheran Eucharist.
One aspect I like to recognize is that Christ held up what was bread in appearance and said, “This is my body, which is given up.” So not only did he say it was his body, but that it was the object of sacrifice. So what did Christ give up on the Cross? His body.
Also, we see the changing of water in to wine as an outward sign of the unseen change in the Eucharist.
In consubstantiation, the idea is that Christ’s body exists along side common bread and wine. But those ordinary things were not given up on the cross.
For more info, see Substances: Comparing the Catholic and Lutheran Eucharist.
P
PietroPaolo
Guest
Better to ask why we wouldn’t believe in transubstantiation. Ask yourself:
What happens when God says “Let there be light?” (cf. Gen 1)
What happens when God says “Be calm” to the storm? (cf. Matt 4)
What happens when God says “Lazarus come out?” (cf. John 11)
What happens when God says “This is my Body…?” (cf. Matt 26)
God’s word is powerful enough to create the entire universe, why would we not believe Him when he says “This is my Body?”
You might also consider that God empowered Aaron to turn the water of the Nile into blood (cf. Ex 7), why wouldn’t Christ have been able to turn wine into blood? Is Christ less powerful than Aaron? You’ll note that Aaron didn’t make blood appear with the water of the Nile, but turned the water into blood (transubstantiation not consubstantiation). We can see Christ was able to turn water into wine (cf John 2), so He obviously could turn wine into blood, only with the Eucharist he chooses to allow the accidents (i.e. the appearances of bread and wine) to remain, while turning the wine into blood as really as He once turned water into wine.
God Bless.
What happens when God says “Let there be light?” (cf. Gen 1)
What happens when God says “Be calm” to the storm? (cf. Matt 4)
What happens when God says “Lazarus come out?” (cf. John 11)
What happens when God says “This is my Body…?” (cf. Matt 26)
God’s word is powerful enough to create the entire universe, why would we not believe Him when he says “This is my Body?”
You might also consider that God empowered Aaron to turn the water of the Nile into blood (cf. Ex 7), why wouldn’t Christ have been able to turn wine into blood? Is Christ less powerful than Aaron? You’ll note that Aaron didn’t make blood appear with the water of the Nile, but turned the water into blood (transubstantiation not consubstantiation). We can see Christ was able to turn water into wine (cf John 2), so He obviously could turn wine into blood, only with the Eucharist he chooses to allow the accidents (i.e. the appearances of bread and wine) to remain, while turning the wine into blood as really as He once turned water into wine.
God Bless.
E
EricFilmer
Guest
How the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ is ultimately a mystery. As a side note, many modern day Lutheran and Anglican theologians go no further than this in terms of an explanation (and therefore, unlike certain Protestant theologians of the past, do not have recourse to explanations such as consubstantiation, receptionism, etc.).
Of course, Catholics agree that the manner by which the Eucharist becomes the Real Presence is a mystery, but the Church has determined that the best method to understand it (to the degree that humans can) is transubstantiation. Moreover, transubstantiation is a dogma of the Church, and we believe that the Magisterium has a guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit to define dogmas in a manner that is free from error.
Gratia vobis et pax multiplicetur,
Fr. Eric
Diocese of Savannah
N
ngill09
Guest
The difference between those miracles and transubstantiation is that those miracles resulted in verifiable manifestation. When Jesus turned water into wine, he didn’t just say that the water was wine but retained all the discernible properties of water - the water actually turned into wine, with all the properties of wine. Jesus spoke often in allegory, parable, and in non-literal terms. The main reason I see why the RCC maintains this dogma is that it cannot admit error and therefore persists in the mental gymnastics necessary to believe that bread and wine are not what they are.
U
Used2beSherryG
Guest
The priest offers up the bread and wine during consecration and the words of Christ are spoken by the person of Christ. The priest becomes “in persona Christi” and the bread and wine are forever changed into the body and blood of Christ. That is why the consecrated host in maintained in the tabernacle. That is how we Catholics can receive the Body and Blood of Christ at other times outside of Mass. Eucharistic ministers, trained and designated by the Church, can carry the body of Christ to the sick as can the Deacon. I recently read about a Eucharistic Miracle that occurred in Buenos Aires in 1996, while Pope Francis was an adjutant Bishop (not sure of correct term just now, like an assistant to the Bishop at that time) I understand that this miracle has been completely documented and approved by the Church. The Eucharist was found in the rear of a church and reported to the priest. He retrieved the host and placed it in water in a small dish and put it into the tabernacle, then notified the Bishop when, a few days later the host had not dissolved as one would expect, but had instead developed a bloody stain. Over some time, the host appeared to grow and look like human tissue. Eventually with proper approval and and with great care taken, ,a small sample was taken to a scientific laboratory with the approval of the Bishop, but without telling the scientist from where the tissue had been taken. The scientist tested the tissue and made some very clear pronouncements that this was a portion of a heart muscle and looked to have been harvested while the patient was still alive based on the presence of white blood cells. He also said that the person’s tissue showed that they had been tortured. The scientist was quite alarmed and did not know the origin of the sample. You can google this information, in case I have misstated some details. Perhaps when you read more, you will understand that this is the true Body and Blood, Soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine to us at the time we receive the Eucharist. Google Eucharistic Miracle in Buenos Aires.
P
PietroPaolo
Guest
So you only believe Christ when you can independently verify what He says? I suppose you don’t believe the good thief actually was that day with Christ in paradise (cf Luke 23) or that Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead (cf Matt 25) because neither resulted in “verifiable manifestation.”
The mental gymnastics seem to be exercised much more on dancing around the very clear statement “this is my Body.” But I suppose “this is a hard saying who can listen it” (John 6:60).
C
capablanca911
Guest
Say there are two identical twins Ron and Jon. Say they are miraculously identical at the molecular level.
Say Ron walks out and shakes your hand. He walks in his room, Jon puts on Ron’s clothes and comes out to shake your hand.
Even though the second handshake is identical to the first in literally every perceptible way, we can tell there is a difference: the first was with Ron and the Second with Jon.
This mental exercise demonstrates that the mind can differentiate between the image of matter and the substance of matter–using substance in a philosphical sense even more precise than molecular perceptions.
Now can two ‘substances’ of matter exist in the same ‘thing’? No.
If it’s true that Christ substantially is present, then the wine and bread must substantially be absent. The image remains, just like with the twins. But addition of a new substance requires the negation of the old.
Say Ron walks out and shakes your hand. He walks in his room, Jon puts on Ron’s clothes and comes out to shake your hand.
Even though the second handshake is identical to the first in literally every perceptible way, we can tell there is a difference: the first was with Ron and the Second with Jon.
This mental exercise demonstrates that the mind can differentiate between the image of matter and the substance of matter–using substance in a philosphical sense even more precise than molecular perceptions.
Now can two ‘substances’ of matter exist in the same ‘thing’? No.
If it’s true that Christ substantially is present, then the wine and bread must substantially be absent. The image remains, just like with the twins. But addition of a new substance requires the negation of the old.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Because we believe in the fulness of Jesus. Not Jesus and part of our teaching, not Jesus as we think He is, not Jesus and some of our works. We receive Him only. We offer our sacrifices and works of love and toil symbolized as the bread and wine. He becomes food under these symbols. We no longer are receiving that bread from earth, but what is from heaven.
We all receive the gospel and Word of God in scripture and tradition. We also all receive it through our imperfect selves, through our human filters. Jesus in the Eucharist is Him unfiltered by us. All of Him hidden in the simple humble unlevened bread, only seen through the gift of faith from the Father above
Other Christian communities diminish this, paralleled with apostolic teaching. We submit to Christ tuly in the teachings of the Magisterium.
Michael
I
itsarule
Guest
because the counsel of trent said it is required to believe in, or you are anathema
COUNCIL OF TRENT: THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST CANON I
If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.
B
brb3
Guest
You are being foolish. What scripture do you use to support your ‘theory’ ?
You know the Church has always held this view on the Eucharist. So, saying the Church has resorted to ‘mental gymnastics’ to explain the ancient teaching is small-minded of you.
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”
(John 20:29, RSV)
Although the Catholic Church is the only one which officially defines this dogma as transubstantiation, your criticism (if I understand it correctly) extends beyond this to be an attempted refutation of the teaching of the Real Presence, which is far from being exclusively Catholic. Do you have a theory as to how all the various Eastern Orthodox Churches, all the various Oriental Orthodox Churches and a number of Protestant denominations (including Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists) likewise persist in teaching that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ?
Also, do you consider your interpretation of Scripture in this matter to be apostolic? If so, can you quote one Christian prior to the Protestant Reformation who said that Jesus’ statements concerning the Eucharist were meant to be understood simply in non-literal terms?
Gratia vobis et pax multiplicetur,
Fr. Eric
Diocese of Savannah
N
ngill09
Guest
The scripture used to justify the theory of transubstantiation is based on a very strained interpretation of scripture that was codified in the early days of the Church and, of course, the Catholic Church and other Churches have been loathe to change their teaching on this sort of thing. This is really a quirky relic of the popular interpretation at a formative time in Christian Theology, and I think that it is entirely irrelevant to salvation or more important theological concerns, so I’m not going to press anyone on it or anything. But do you really think it more reasonable that God would make our worship of him dependent on our pretending that bread is not bread and that wine is not wine, than that He meant us to perform this tradition in spiritual remembrance and renewal of His sacrifice? What possible purpose would this magical and mystical act of invisible transformation serve that God could not perform through less irrational means?
When Christ said “You are the salt of the earth” did he miraculously transform people into salt?
B
brb3
Guest
A – Yes, formed from the Apostles … from teaching and tradition they received from Christ. What teaching would you like them to change to today ?
B – I believe what Christ said/taught in John Chp. 6 … and confirmed by Paul in his teaching on the Eucharist. Where did you get your information ?
C – To separate those who believe in miracles, from those who don’t. Do you propose you can teach God how he should present Christ to the Church ?
D – Did he say that he wished too ? Or did he say his disciples were already purified / preserved by his H.S. ?
R
rcwitness
Guest
What scripture are you referring to?
We are not pretending. The communions that dont believe Jesus’ flesh and blood are there are pretending. They are pretending it is His body but dont believe it is blessed. They believe it is only a profession of their faith. Which they do well to profess the Lord’s death for our sins. But Jesus is commanding us to receive His body and blood.
When Jesus takes the bread and cup and blesses it, saying “This is my body, this is my blood” do you think it remains the same? Why does he bless the bread? Why did He not just bless the disciples directly and not the bread? Because He was instituting this Sacrament for when He would be gone.
When the Israeites sacrificed the lamb at Passover, they were commanded to eat it. Why? What if they said, “It is good enough to sacrifice and worship in our hearts.” Would they be passed over with the plague of death?
Read the walk to Emmaus. The disciples eyes were kept closed. They were told all the scripture and its meaning about Jesus, but Scripture was not what opened their eyes!
When we hear scripture it is the bread of life, the Spirit speaking to our hearts. But we have so many different interpretations of the bread of life. We have opposing communities. Why?
When we receive the Lord’s body and blood, we are not receiving a distorted version influences by men. We are not accepting a filtered image of who God and the Massiah truly are. We are receiving Him! Nothing more, nothing less.
But dont get Catholic worship and reception of Eucharist one sided. We are to receive the word in our hearts the same way as His body as food. It is not one or the other. We must be worshipping in the Spirit to believe the Spirit brings life from heaven. This life is the incarnate Word of God, who personally enters each of us and brings us together in Himself.
Please take time to consider the deep mystery of this Sacrament. Ask the Father what he wants you to believe. Read John 6 in prayerfull meditation, considering what the faithfull has believed since the early days.
Michael
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’m not sure that’s accurate. Lutherans very much believe in the Flesh and Blood, but Consubstantiation means it’s still bread and wine as well. Catholics believe that the substance has been changed, thus Transubstantiation. In the English “This is my body” it is hard to see, because most will tell you that “this” refers to the bread. The Greek and Latin say otherwise.
E
EricFilmer
Guest
The Real Presence in the Eucharist is a literal interpretation of John 6. Exactly how is a literal interpretation “strained”?
It is an apostolic teaching. The fact that all the various Churches that directly grew from the initial Apostolic Sees have historically taught the Real Presence demonstrates this.
We don’t change doctrine, or any other part of divine revelation. Nor did anyone suggest that such a change in teaching be made for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
In John 6, Jesus says that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we have no life in us. This, in and of itself, establishes relevance and importance.
Furthermore, St. Paul writes:
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (1Corinthians 11:27-30)
Obviously Paul does not think of the Eucharist as being simply symbolic (unworthily receiving a symbols doesn’t kill people), or a matter that is of little relevance or importance.
Actually, I’m still wondering what your answers are to the questions I posted. I’m answering your questions, so it would be nice if you answered mine. If this is starting to get off-topic then we can begin a new thread discussion focusing on it.
“Reasonable” is subjective. Moreover, doctrine is based on what God has revealed, with universal Christian doctrine stemming from the apostolic Deposit of Faith (i.e., Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, including the official definitions thereof made by the Magisterium).
Furthermore, in John 6, Jesus compared his Body and Blood to the mana from the time of Moses. In terms of biblical typology the New Testament fulfillment of biblical “types” is always greater than the Old Testament predecessors. The Hebrews in the wilderness got miraculous bread made from the hands of angels that sustained their biological life. If the Body and Blood of Christ is nothing more than a spiritual remembrance then it is actually a lesser phenomenon than the Old Testament mana.
So the litmus test for the truth of a proposed doctrine is what you personally deem to be purposeful and rational? Does not the Bible teach that God’s ways are not our ways?
Just because Jesus sometimes spoke metaphorically does not mean he always did.
And as a final comment, may I humbly suggest that in the future you reconsider using terms such as “quirky”, “pretending” and “magical” (at least in the context that you did in this thread). Such language could come across as being disrespectful of the Catholic Faith, which is a violation of forum rules. I see that you have recently joined CAF, so let me say, “Welcome!” but also please be aware that the mods here take the forum rules very seriously.
Gratia vobis et pax multiplicetur,
Fr. Eric
Diocese of Savannah
N
ngill09
Guest
I really should have known better than to think that anything productive can come of discussion of the Eucharist. It boils down to an article of faith and I realize that such things are unassailable.
I realize that you have thousands of years of tradition and rationalization for this teaching, but it seems absurd in the highest to an objective onlooker. I do not mean this to blaspheme the Eucharist or to ridicule it, but to point out the seeming absurdity of a particular interpretation of the metaphysical nature of the sacrament to someone who believes in a God of Reason. Just as I consider a literal 6-day interpretation of Genesis 1 to require refining in light of what reason and examination of the Universe affords us, so too I think that our reason dictates a more plausible interpretation of the Eucharist.
I realize that you have thousands of years of tradition and rationalization for this teaching, but it seems absurd in the highest to an objective onlooker. I do not mean this to blaspheme the Eucharist or to ridicule it, but to point out the seeming absurdity of a particular interpretation of the metaphysical nature of the sacrament to someone who believes in a God of Reason. Just as I consider a literal 6-day interpretation of Genesis 1 to require refining in light of what reason and examination of the Universe affords us, so too I think that our reason dictates a more plausible interpretation of the Eucharist.
A
Augustine3
Guest
For the third time, it would be nice if you answered Fr Eric’s question. I’m interest to see your answer to this :hey_bud:
- Status