Does the Eucharist stop remaining bread?

Status
Not open for further replies.
@BlackFriar This is a simple explanation of how Orthodoxy views the Eucharist:

Jesus: Take. Eat. This is my Body
Orthodox: okay. eats

We don’t attempt to explain exactly what or even precisely when in the Divine Liturgy the change happens. We just believe that Jesus said it is His Body, and therefore it is His Body. We let God take care of the details. 🙂
 
Last edited:
…Very sensible. Do you use the word bread, in any manner, to refer to what you consume?
 
Last edited:
There is an institution Narrative and a Consecration, but we do not p(name removed by moderator)oint an exact moment in the consecration or an exact method for the change.
Throughout the consecration we say things like: (This is now specific to the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, frequently prayed in the Coptic Orthodox Church)

“For every time you eat of this bread and drink of this cup, you proclaim my death, confess my resurrection, and remember me until I come”
“and this bread He makes into His Holy Body”

The Consecration ends close to right before we partake of the Holy Eucharist. And it is at this point presented verbally as the “Holy Body” although we do not know the exact moment the change occurred, nor do we seek to explain that.

But also, I’m not sure why that is relevant. Christ refers to Himself as the Bread of Life. St. Paul writes, “Whoever eats of this bread or drinks of the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner is guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” So we see that even the Holy Bible uses the word “bread” referring to the consecrated bread; the Holy Body of our Lord. Yet we are sure these apostles did not believe in consubstantiation. So how is the word “bread” relevant?
 
All very well but was simply interested in what you would call the spiritual food that is placed in your hand (or mouth) at Communion time.

Bread of life?
Holy Body? (But then the chalice is his Holy Body also I would think)
Consecrated bread?

If Roman Catholics were being strict about their transubstantiation belief that the “substance” of bread was no longer present then strictly speaking we should not be using these substantive bread type phrases.

But we do!

Lex orandi lex credendi.
 
Last edited:
In the Coptic Church those receiving never take in hand. We call this the Holy Body of our Lord. The Chalice is His Precious Blood. 🙂 We always receive from both.

According to @FrDavid96 after the consecration in a Catholic mass, the word “bread” is not used.
 
LoveJoyPeace said:
In the Coptic Church those receiving never take in hand. We call this the Holy Body of our Lord. The Chalice is His Precious Blood. 🙂 We always receive from both.

According to @FrDavid96 after the consecration in a Catholic mass, the word “bread” is not used.
Click to expand...
“When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come again”. I’m quite certain this liturgical prayer happens after consecration. But, referring to the Bread of Heaven is not calling Him “bread”.
 
Last edited:
I know the naming customs of the (Roman) Catholic Church (which FrDavid likely represents) but was really wanting to understand the various ones of the Orthodox Church.
It sounds like you are not Orthodox Coptic but Catholic Coptic? Would there be a difference in such customs re naming the consecrated bread?
 
Last edited:
Good observation…but the “substance” is still called bread. We do call it bread as well as Jesus. How contradictory is our language
 
Well I suppose because you said “Coptic Church” which is ambiguous (see Wikipedia for example) and you are a member of a Catholic forum afterall 🙂
 
Last edited:
I guess I could have maintained more clarity. I am so used to just saying “Coptic Church” since at least 95% of the Coptic Church is Orthodox. lol 🙂
 
We Romans tend to be fairly ignorant about our Eastern brothers and sisters be they Catholic or Orthodox.
I didn’t realise the vast majority of Coptics were Orthodox!
 
BlackFriar said:
Good observation…but the “substance” is still called bread. We do call it bread as well as Jesus. How contradictory is our language
Click to expand...
You are trying to force something which does not exist.

You keep insisting that we call the Eucharist “bread.” That’s simply not true. We do not. Even if we use the word, it’s always used in a particular way, such as “Bread of Angels” and NOT in the way that you’re implying, that of ordinary bread.

You are simply going around in a big circle of your own creating.

You say we call it bread. Untrue.

Then you say that because we call it bread, we’ve created some kind of self-contradicting vocabulary: one where the vocabulary contradicts the theology.

Catholics have done no such thing.

We simply do not do the things you claim.

The circular logic you’re trying to “prove” here is not a problem with Catholic Theology.

It is a simply matter of you mis-representing Catholic theology.
 
FrDavid96 said:
It is a simply matter of you mis-representing Catholic theology.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what theology you believe I am misrepresenting by commenting on LJP.

I simply observe that the sentence “When we eat this Bread”, and others similar (Holy Bread or Bread of Life) , at face value refer to bread in a substantial manner.

I have also observed that in everyday colloquial english we tend to subconsciously define “real” and “presence” on the basis of functionality or by sense perceptions.
As the saying goes, “If it looks like a rose and smells like a rose…”

Therefore those who do think in this way would find the assertion that the consecrated species is no longer bread to be a logical contradiction.

You may personally disagree that people subconsciously define words that way. But as the definition of english words is not a matter of faith or morals I am not sure how my own observation re this likely use of english words misrepresents the Catholic Theology all of us affirm.

At most I may misrepresent how english speakers understand/define the colloquial word “presence” … as may you.
So saying “the bread is no longer present” may well mean for many english people the same as “the sense perceptions of bread are no longer there.” That of course is not the case in Catholic theology.

The above observation seems one solved not by theology but likely by the social sciences.
 
Last edited:
“BlackFriar said:
I simply observe that the sentence “When we eat this Bread”, and others similar (Holy Bread or Bread of Life) , at face value refer to bread in a substantial manner.
Click to expand...
Bread in these phrases is not to be understood in a univocal or substantial manner. The word ‘bread’ here is being used in an analogical or equivocal meaning (without thinking about it further presently, I think the meaning would be called analogical and not equivocal. It definitely is not univocal). Similarly, in John 10:9, Jesus says ‘I am the door’. The word ‘door’ here does not carry a univocal meaning in that Jesus is literally a door or that Jesus’ phrase ‘I am the door’ carries the same meaning as ‘the door of my house’. Jesus is using the word ‘door’ here in an analogical or equivocal sense. Again, in John 6:35, Jesus says ‘I am the bread of life.’ Jesus is not literally a piece of bread so he is using the word ‘bread’ here in an analogical or equivocal sense but if we were to choose between analogical or equivocal, I think it would be analogical. An analogical application of some word is when the word is applied partly in the same sense and partly in a different sense. We do it all the time in everyday life. For example, the term ‘cheerful’ can apply to a smile, to a thought, to a landscape, to a color, but partly in the same sense and partly in different senses. We also use words in an equivocal sense regularly. For example, a ‘table’ may mean a piece of furniture or the table of contents of a book.
As the saying goes, “If it looks like a rose and smells like a rose…”

Therefore those who do think in this way would find the assertion that the consecrated species is no longer bread to be a logical contradiction.
Click to expand...
This is the mystery of the eucharist. What looks like bread, tastes like bread, feels like bread, smells like bread, is not bread. The laws of nature in the eucharist have been suspended by God’s almighty power. The eucharist is a supernatural miracle. It is a one of a kind substantial change not observed anywhere else in the universe which is why the substantial change that occurs to the bread and wine at Mass has a name all its own, namely, transubstantiation. Secondly, you simply do not have bread and wine without the substances of bread and wine being present and the substances of bread and wine are not present after the consecration. What remains of the bread and wine after the consecration at Mass are the accidents or species (appearances) of the bread and wine. You seem to be confusing accidents with substance or identifying accidents with substance. The substance ‘stands under’ and gives being to the accidents. The accidents are what is apparent to the senses and sense observation. Sense observation does not penetrate to the substance. The substance is only known by the intellect. Bread and wine like all created things have a composition of substance and accidents. In the miracle of the eucharist, the substances of the bread and wine change into the substances of the body and blood of Christ while the accidents or appearances of the bread and wine remain by divine power.
Click to expand...
 
Richca said:
This is the mystery of the eucharist. What looks like bread, tastes like bread, feels like bread, smells like bread, is not bread.
Click to expand...
You may have missed my small but fairly clear observation re modern unconscious definitions of how we define “real” or “presence” and the real logical contradictions that follow from translating Latin theology accordingly.
Not even appeal to mystery can overcome a logical contradiction ensuing from a word definition if it be correct.

We all know the Latin theology. That is not the issue.

Re analogy.
Yes of course, though I see little analogy in “holy bread” or “bread of life”.
The presence of everyday bread is fairly clearly being indicated…in addition to much more.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
I am not sure what theology you believe I am misrepresenting by commenting on LJP.

I simply observe that the sentence “When we eat this Bread”, and others similar (Holy Bread or Bread of Life) , at face value refer to bread in a substantial manner.
Click to expand...
And that’s simply wrong. It is a misrepresentation of what is being said.

Those words do not refer “in a substantial manner” to the Eucharist. They are meant in a poetic sense. We absolutely do not mean those words at face value.

We all know that “when we say bread we don’t mean bread.”

You are trying to claim that either (a) we don’t know it or (b) we don’t really believe it. Neither is the case.
I have also observed that in everyday colloquial english we tend to subconsciously define “real” and “presence” on the basis of functionality or by sense perceptions.
As the saying goes, “If it looks like a rose and smells like a rose…”

Therefore those who do think in this way would find the assertion that the consecrated species is no longer bread to be a logical contradiction.
Click to expand...
No. We see it as a miracle. We see it as a contradiction of the senses. We consume the Body of Christ, but our eyes and bodies react to the accidents of bread.

I am thinking here especially of the words St Thomas wrote in the hymn Pange Lingua: the idea that the senses are defective but faith supplies.
You may personally disagree that people subconsciously define words that way. But as the definition of english words is not a matter of faith or morals I am not sure how my own observation re this likely use of english words misrepresents the Catholic Theology all of us affirm.

At most I may misrepresent how english speakers understand/define the colloquial word “presence” … as may you.
So saying “the bread is no longer present” may well mean for many english people the same as “the sense perceptions of bread are no longer there.” That of course is not the case in Catholic theology.

The above observation seems one solved not by theology but likely by the social sciences.
Click to expand...
I cannot fathom what your goal is here. I think you’re trying to experiment at philosophy without having the requisite background to actually engage in it. If you’re beginning to study philosophy, I wish you the best and hope that someday you will reach that point when you can engage in philosophical debate.

I don’t see any point in further comments here.
 
FrDavid96 I likely have a better philosophic and theological education than yourself thanks very much.

I suggest you are the one who has missed the small point I make here rather than the reverse which you suggest.

This is simply a question of modern english and the definition of colloquial words. The Roman Latin Church does not define the english language…influential though it has been.

When I, and likely many other english speakers, call the sacred species consecrated bread or holy bread or even the bread of life then the “bread” I signify by that word is the one recognised by the senses, the same signification used for that in my daily bread, … and far more besides when described with adjectives like holy or consecrated or life.
You maybe not so much.

God bless.
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand why you think words—and our brains—are so limited to tangible measurements and specific narrow definitions. English can convey diverse and complex concepts, and our minds are not limited to thinking only in terms of what we physically perceive.

It may take some explanation of transubstantiation, but anyone can learn what this means and see how the words “real” and “present” are being used correctly even though one still senses only bread and wine. The mind IS able to understand this.

Strictly speaking of words, English can be used in more ways than which you have limited them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top