Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[Gorgias]

Do you believe that transubstantiation occurred at the Last Supper? Or do you think the wine was symbolic at the Last Supper, but then after the resurrection the wine was no longer symbolic but actually converted into blood?

Yes, I believe that it was truly the Eucharist at the Last Supper. More importantly, so does the Church. From the Catechism:

“At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’”

(NB: the quote here (at CCC 1323) comes from Sacrosanctum conciliam, #47)

Most Catholics are insistent that when he said, “This is my blood,” at the Last Supper that transubstantiation occurred at that time. I don’t think that the Catholic Church has an official stance on this.

Is the quote from the Catechism not official enough for you?

Clement of Alexandria viewed it as symbolic.

Would it be helpful to review how the Magisterium works? That a single theologian does not define doctrine for the Church?

I have learned that the “real presence” is a tricky term. It has a flexible meaning. Many on here use it as a synonym for transubstantiation, however it actually includes beliefs of other Orthodox and Protestant groups including those in the Calvinist category who believe in a spiritual presence of the Eucharist.

“The real presence” is an answer to the question “what is the Eucharist?”

“Transubstantiation” is an answer to the question “how does the Eucharist become Jesus’ real presence?”

The two aren’t synonyms, or even competing answers to the same question.

 

[mcq72]

“The church of the middle ages, and even before that, believed that the sacred actions of the priest led to the transformation of the Eucharistic bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. One could understand Christ’s presence either symbolically or literally. Thus, Augustine defined the sacrament as an external, tangible sign of a reality that existed only in the realm of the spirit. Thus Christ was present in the Eucharist spiritually but not physically. Later theologians, however, desired to further define the Eucharist as being much more than a sign of spiritual reality.”

"The emphasis on Christ’s real presence, as defined by the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice led to the church of taking the step of venerating the host. If the host (bread) had truly become the divine body of Christ, then it like Christ could be worshipped. Thus the host was elevated and venerated, and it came to be believed that simply being in the presence of the host was sufficient to cleanse one from sin. This meant that actually consuming the Eucharistic elements was unnecessary, for in the host the person of Christ became tangible and this was sufficient. Only the priests therefore need to take the elements. "

The Medieval Catholic View of the Real Presence in the Eucharist

A blog about Christianity, theology, religion and public life.

www.bobcornwall.com

 

[Gorgias]

Augustine defined the sacrament as an external, tangible sign of a reality that existed only in the realm of the spirit.

So, you’re quoting from a Disciples of Christ pastor, who rejects transubstantiation. Hmm… I wonder through what lens, exactly, he views Augustine’s thought?

However, a Catholic response would be that he is mistaken: Did Tertullian and St. Augustine Deny the Real Presence? | Catholic Answers

From this webpage, quoting Augustine, “not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.” (Emphasis mine)

And again, quoting Augustine, “Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said, ‘This is My Body.’ For He carried that Body in His hands.”

Hmm… sure sounds like Augustine believed in a reality that existed in more than “the realm of the spirit”, contra to your quote from Cornwall…

 

[susanlo]

Yes, I believe that it was truly the Eucharist at the Last Supper. More importantly, so does the Church. From the Catechism:

Scott Hahn in the above video as well as Brant Pitre emphasize that it was “the fruit of the vine” that Jesus consumed after declaring it His body. Do you disagree with this?

 

[mcq72]

So, you’re quoting from a Disciples of Christ pastor, who rejects transubstantiation. Hmm… I wonder through what lens, exactly, he views Augustine’s thought?

However, a Catholic response would be that he is mistaken: Did Tertullian and St. Augustine Deny the Real Presence? | Catholic Answers

From this webpage, quoting Augustine, “not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.” (Emphasis mine)

And again, quoting Augustine, “Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said, ‘This is My Body.’ For He carried that Body in His hands.”

Hmm… sure sounds like Augustine believed in a reality that existed in more than “the realm of the spirit”, contra to your quote from Cornwall…

perhaps it takes a catholic eye to see that anytime His body is mentioned at communion it must mean literal, just as Reformers can see it as spiritual. Just that reformers seem to see the evolving, per the words of the fathers…being able to admit these things, where Catholics are bound to say all things are from the beginning (literal body presence).

quoting Augustine, “not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.”

correct…natural bread certainly changes in its significance in remembrance consecration, and for sure the focus is Christ’s body, per His own words,and just how does it become Christs body, spiritually ? , literally ?

And again, quoting Augustine, “Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said, ‘This is My Body.’ For He carried that Body in His hands.”

yes, we differ from the beginning of the story , the Last Supper, like did He really drink His own blood literally, and then 5 minutes later call that cup wine literally, or was that figurative speech (wine) ?

Hmm… sure sounds like Augustine believed in a reality that existed in more than “the realm of the spirit”,

So it can not be His body and blood in the realm of the spirit ? Did not Augustine say “leave your teeth and belly behind”…Can not one “eat His flesh” in faith without it being His literal flesh ?

Believe Augustine said Peter ate His flesh by believing in His words and Messiahship, by faith, in John 6 discourse… Augustine did not say Peter would do that later (John 6 “eat my flesh”) by literally eating Him at Last Supper and thereafter.

Just saying topic is not that easy, cut and dry, and not with unanimous consent of fathers (not saying it has to be either), and official CC teaching was a progression

 

[steve-b]

guanophore:

Sorry, I think you lost me here.

Is transub only possible historical interpretation for real presence?

mcq73,

While this question wasn’t to me, may I jump in with a quick comment.

When the Church defines a doctrine, pulling from her understanding going back to Jesus, the apostles, and the ongoing Tradition of the only Church Jesus build and promises to build, on Peter and those in union with Peter, THEN that is the official understanding of a doctrine in the Church. We’ve seen that happen even many centuries after a doctrine is in place. Ergo the phrase development of doctrine

that said

since official definitions develop and often come when / or after prolonged arguments over meaning of a belief, that needs an official conclusion…

For example:

The official closing of the canon of scripture.

The canon (73 books) was defined at the council of Rome in 382, by pope Damasus I.

That canon has not changed to this day. It was also defined by 2 ecumenical councils
Florence Session 11 1442
Trent 1546

However,

Protestants (starting with Luther) argued about the canon even inspite of all the history to the contrary to his opinion… Even though before he was even a thought, the canon was settled and to this day, Protestants have 66 books NOT 73.

 

[rcwitness]

perhaps it takes a catholic eye to see that anytime His body is mentioned at communion it must mean literal, just as Reformers can see it as spiritual. Just that reformers seem to see the evolving, per the words of the fathers…being able to admit these things, where Catholics are bound to say all things are from the beginning (literal body presence).

This is not true, but I think its maybe the heart of the matter!

What I mean, is that we (the Catholic faithful and perhaps the Protestant faithful too?) no longer (after Pentecost) see His literal body as either separable or inferior to His Spirit (Holy Spirit).

This is the mystical wonder of the Sacrament entirely!!! His Body and Blood has been sealed by the Word (or Father) as one with His Spirit! He literally rose from death, literally ascended to heaven, literally passed through locked doors, and literally appeared and vanished in a moment… yet by the power of the Spirit! Is this not recegnizing His body and blood as opperating through and with the Spirit???

 

[rcwitness]

Gorgias:

Yes, I believe that it was truly the Eucharist at the Last Supper. More importantly, so does the Church. From the Catechism:

Scott Hahn in the above video as well as Brant Pitre emphasize that it was “the fruit of the vine” that Jesus consumed after declaring it His body. Do you disagree with this?

CCC #333
At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread. . . .” “He took the cup filled with wine. . . .” The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.1

So the elements of bread and wine are changed “in a way surpassing understanding” yet the signs (or symbols) of bread and wine continue to signify the goodness of creation, the fruits of creation and of the vine!

 

[susanlo]

From this webpage, quoting Augustine, “not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.” (Emphasis mine)

This sermon is in this book: Sermon 234 on pg. 37
He is using the Bible passage about how the disciples recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread in Luke 24. He isn’t speaking directly of the Eucharist, but using imagery. Of course even Christians who believe in a symbolic communion use the terms body and blood to refer to the bread and wine.

And again, quoting Augustine, “Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said, ‘This is My Body.’ For He carried that Body in His hands.”

A larger quote:
“But, He drummed upon the doors of the city: what are the doors of the city, but our hearts which we had closed against Christ, who by the drum of His Cross has opened the hearts of mortal men? And was carried in His Own Hands: how carried in His Own Hands? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, This is My Body. Matthew 26:26 And He fell down at the doors of the gate; that is, He humbled Himself. For this it is, to fall down even at the very beginning of our faith. For the door of the gate is the beginning of faith; whence begins the Church, and arrives at last even unto sight: that as it believes those things which it sees not, it may deserve to enjoy them, when it shall have begun to see face to face. So is the title of the Psalm; briefly we have heard it; let us now hear the very words of Him that affects, and drums upon the doors of the city.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm

He is using some imagery to explain this Psalm. He makes three allegorical statements (which I have emboldened), and then he explains each (which I put in italics). I don’t see any reason to take these statements as literal. It is rather hard to understand this passage, but I don’t see where he is explaining the Eucharist in literal terms. He even inserts the phrase “in a manner” in his explanation for carrying Himself.

 

[susanlo]

What did Augustine teach about the Eucharist? There are a few good (and short) sermons from him online about communion: Sermon 272 and Sermon 227

He also explains the difference between interpreting the Bible in literal vs. figurative ways:
“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

 

[Gorgias]

Scott Hahn in the above video as well as Brant Pitre emphasize that it was “the fruit of the vine” that Jesus consumed after declaring it His body. Do you disagree with this?

Are you talking about the 55-minute audio that @guanophore linked? If so, perhaps you could give me a citation to the rough time that he mentions this, rather than asking me to listen to an hour-long audio in order to answer a simple question?

Thanks!

 

[steve-b]

perhaps it takes a catholic eye to see that anytime His body is mentioned at communion it must mean literal, just as Reformers can see it as spiritual. Just that reformers seem to see the evolving, per the words of the fathers…being able to admit these things, where Catholics are bound to say all things are from the beginning (literal body presence).

At the Last Supper when Jesus instituted the Eucharist, And said after the blessing
Re: the Bread, take and eat, this is my body
Re: the wine, take and drink this is my blood of the new covenant
Re: ποιεῖτε DO this Lk 22:19 DO WHAT?

1. make, manufacture, construct, cause, to appoint or ordain one, to change one thing into another,

Jesus here, ordains His apostles, and gives them the authority and the power to do exactly What Jesus did here. Change bread and wine into His body and blood. And this ordination, authority, and power, from Jesus, is to continue. Thus, apostolic succession.

mcq72:

Just saying topic is not that easy, cut and dry, and not with unanimous consent of fathers (not saying it has to be either), and official CC teaching was a progression

As in, doctrine develops

 

[guanophore]

Scott Hahn in the above video as well as Brant Pitre emphasize that it was “the fruit of the vine” that Jesus consumed after declaring it His body. Do you disagree with this?

The fruit of the vine and the bread (“work of human hands”) is what we bring to Mass. Once there, they are consecrated.

During the last supper, jesus took the cup (fruit of the vine) and declared it was His blood. Are you saying he told a lie?

Catholics are bound to say all things are from the beginning (literal body presence).

Catholics are bound by what was handed down to us from the beginning. We are not at liberty to 'evolve" doctrine as the Reformers have done. This would constitute “a different Gospel” than the one we received.

 

[mcq72]

Protestants (starting with Luther) argued about the canon even inspite of all the history to the contrary to his opinion… Even though before he was even a thought, the canon was settled and to this day, Protestants have 66 books NOT 73.

thank you.Understand that there can be diversity of opinion, until the church rules.

And like canon, where there was some opinions surrounding canon ( mostly on Hebrew Bible) until final ruling, reformers certainly brought nothing new to table as far as opinions , only a different ruling, and so it is with communion rulings .

 

[MichaelP3]

Even Pope Gregory the great did not get the memo from that council and had a different opinion. And that was after that council.

Gregory the Great, the Deuterocanon, and Papal Infallibility

The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility teaches that the Pope, when he teaches on matters that concern faith or morals to the whole Church with the intent that the faithful follow the opinion, is teach…

www.google.co.za

 

[mcq72]

At the Last Supper when Jesus instituted the Eucharist, And said after the blessing

Re: the Bread, take and eat, this is my body

Re: the wine, take and drink this is my blood of the new covenant

Re: ποιεῖτε DO this Lk 22:19 DO WHAT?

make, manufacture, construct, cause, to appoint or ordain one, to change one thing into another,

Jesus here, ordains His apostles, and gives them the authority and the power to do exactly What Jesus did here. Change bread and wine into His body and blood. And this ordination, authority, and power, from Jesus, is to continue. Thus, apostolic succession.

yes, it all goes back to opinions on Last Supper (and John 6 and a text in Corinthians).

But yes what is “do this”…it was a Jewish Passover, full of symbols outlaying spiritual principle and HIStory…no priests were present save the Lord (family affair…heirus priest left behind at temple, no more to offer blood sacrifices)…this we do but why?..in remembrance , of the sign of new covenant, till His coming again.

 

[mcq72]

Catholics are bound by what was handed down to us from the beginning. We are not at liberty to 'evolve" doctrine as the Reformers have done. This would constitute “a different Gospel” than the one we received

my last few posts do not suggest we have anything new than what has been said by some Catholics of .antiquity…just a different ruling, a different end to the "development " of doctrine, a term used in prior post.

There is a difference between a different gospel that was received, and than what was ruled, We both receive the same foundation…just different rulings, at different times as allowed

 

[rcwitness]

But yes what is “do this”…it was a Jewish Passover, full of symbols outlaying spiritual principle and HIStory….no priests were present save the Lord (family affair…heirus priest left behind at temple, no more to offer blood sacrifices)…this we do but why?..in remembrance , of the sign of new covenant, till His coming again.

Was Jesus a Preist? I thought He was a Rabbi…?

And the 12, who were the ones at table, were Apostles of Jesus.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Protestants (starting with Luther) argued about the canon even inspite of all the history to the contrary to his opinion… Even though before he was even a thought, the canon was settled and to this day, Protestants have 66 books NOT 73.

thank you.Understand that there can be diversity of opinion, until the church rules.

And like canon, where there was some opinions surrounding canon ( mostly on Hebrew Bible) until final ruling, reformers certainly brought nothing new to table as far as opinions , only a different ruling, and so it is with communion rulings .

mcq72,

Actually, Re: the “Hebrew” canon, i.e. the OT in our vernacular,
We need to distinguish which Hebrews we’re talking about

The Hebrews that didn’t accept and rejected Jesus, have 39 books to their canon. THIS is the canon Luther in the 16th century accepted, and in extension, all the Protestants from then till now. Add to that the 27 books of the NT = 66 books.

The Hebrews that accepted Jesus took the Septuagint OT, as theirs, (46 books) completed ~160 B.C. + 27 books NT = 73 books. These were the first Catholics in the Catholic Church. Jesus, 100% Jewish in human nature, as well as, all His apostles, and those who they converted until gentiles entered the Church were ALL Jewish. In the beginning, the Catholic Church was 100% bonafide Hebrew /Jewish.

 

[guanophore]

is Christ’s body, per His own words,and just how does it become Christs body, spiritually ? , literally ?

This is a false dichotomy that is made by many evangelicals between “spiritual” and “literal”, as if something that exists in spiritual form cannot be “literal” (real?)

Spiritual is relegated to metaphorical or figurative, as if something that exists in the spiritual plane is not “literal”. Such a false dichotomy rules out an reality that is not “physical” in nature, including angels!

the Last Supper, like did He really drink His own blood literally, and then 5 minutes later call that cup wine literally, or was that figurative speech (wine) ?

I think you lost me here. Are you claiming that Jesus said the cup was “wine” after he said “this is my blood”?

So it can not be His body and blood in the realm of the spirit ?

Of course it is, but that does not preclude that it is also in the temporal/physical realm.

Can not one “eat His flesh” in faith without it being His literal flesh ?

Yes, Protestants do this all the time! We call this a spiritual communion, when one unites to Christ without the Real Presence. Catholics have a special prayer for spiritual communion when we cannot be present at the eucharist. Protestants, too, have this kind of longing and prayer at their communion services.

Believe Augustine said Peter ate His flesh by believing in His words and Messiahship, by faith, in John 6 discourse…

Yes, of course, this is a metaphor of “consuming” Christ.

If you are trying to make the claim that Augustine does not believe in the Real Presence, I think you will not succeed.