Does the Eucharist stop remaining bread?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also feel the need to point out that many English words are derivatives of Latin. So your argument is inherently faulty.
 
Catherinabird said:
words “real” and “present” are being used correctly even though one still senses only bread and wine
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “used correctly”?
No single organisation defines what colloquial words mean.

I observe many english speakers do not actually use important words in a way theologically educated persons might use them and would disagree with the definitions you hold to be “correct”.

This is not a Catholic Theology issue. It is a translation/philology issue.
One small group doesnt get to decide what everyday words must mean or how they are accurately used. Oxford Dictionary seems to have given up that fight some years ago.

Language changes, todays correct is tomorrows pedantic/archaic it seems to me. Evolution eventually decides “correct” it seems.
 
Last edited:
You are trying to limit a word to its “ordinary” use for what is an extraordinary situation.
 
Of course.
That is exactly the issue.

A Church teaching transliterated into colloquial english attempts to force an extraordinary definition onto the ordinary use of the word which is so foreign to its ordinary use it results in a logical contradiction of meanings for many.

You clearly disagree…yet mount no argument against my explanation for this…based on the way the Enlightenment changed the way english people define concrete reality.

You believe that the superficial importing of Latin words into the english language somehow changes this english way of thinking.
In fact even the way of thinking the Latin theology uses is not Latin in origin. It is Greek…and only one ancient Greek school of thought at that. Just as Catholic Latin is not Classical Latin in thinking.

The English did not have a history of thinking about reality in any way like that of the ancient Greeks. What supernatural intuitions could have been used to express this ancient way of thinking about what is real was largely overturned by Enlightenment philosophy. Concretely real today is mainly what is seen touched or tasted. Always bread if it is perceived as behaving like bread.
That doesnt deny Jesus’s real presence… but trying to say the bread has gone is an exercise in futility and contradiction to the minds even of many convinced Catholics who understand reality in this acceptably english tradition.

I get it you do not think this way and so cannot see the difficulty that has nothing to do with denying the Latin theology…only the way words are defined.
 
Last edited:
I think you underestimate the ability of people to learn and understand complex concepts, when explained. Or, you’re just having fun circling around words (but not literally circling of course, because that is not what I mean here, ha).

I will cede that there may very well be people who find it difficult to understand. There may be many who don’t at all because it appears a contradiction to the senses and they can’t see beyond that. However, I believe many of them, if they wanted to, could come to understand. Yes, it may be difficult for them, but I don’t think it is futile.
 
Catherinabird said:
I think you underestimate the ability of people to learn and understand complex concepts,
Click to expand...
You misunderstand my observation.
The issue is not one of understanding concepts.
It is one of being true to colloquial english definitions of “real” or “presence”.

It is not unreasonable to observe the Catholic Church so stretches the use of those English words that they are not recognisable to many English persons whether educated or not, Catholics or not.
I tend to agree, you not so much.
it appears a contradiction to the senses.
Click to expand...
No, the Latin (Greek) formulated Catholic belief has never been a contradiction to the senses but a mystery to the senses.

It is the use of colloquial english to transliterate a Latin “formula” that additionally makes it a logical contradiction as well for many people.
Ancient Catholics never had to swallow both a mystery and a logical contradiction.
They only had to swallow a mystery.

That Jesus is personally present in the Eucharist is a mystery (hidden to the senses).
To say that all the usual sense qualities of the bread remain yet the bread is no longer “present” or “real” is an illogical use of these words for many intelligent and faithful english Catholics.

You may as well ask them to believe that God can shift an immovable object or create a triangle that does not have three sides.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
Indeed.
The issue is not over theology but over correct use of language and the definitions.of words used in different languages.

In 21st century English the bread is still present.
In Latin it is not.

Take your choice, but whatever choice you make lets respect the actual meaning of the language used to express the same reality that does not change though language may.
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight. You’re not objecting to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. You’re objecting to the language used to describe what happens when the bread and wine are transubstantiated to Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity? Is that right?
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
…
Yes, at the moment of consecration the bread and wine is transformed into the real, actual body and blood of Jesus. It’s not just a symbol. However (despite the pious wishes of some Catholics) if you took a consecrated host and analyzed it, the molecular structure would still be bread. Is it bread? Catholic doctrine is that it is not. Can we explain it? …
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a miracle that the species appear the same before and after consecration.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure that Catholic theology, strictly speaking, asserts that the Eucharistic Presence is a “miracle”.
Miracles, by the Catholic definition, must be a source of wonder at the level of sensible perception.
We all agree there is no change in the sensible perception of the bread before and after consecration.

On the other hand if we refer to such events as at Lanciano these are correctly called “Eucharistic miracles”.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
I am not sure that Catholic theology, strictly speaking, asserts that the Eucharistic Presence is a “miracle”.

Miracles, by the Catholic definition, must be a source of wonder at the level of sensible perception.

We all agree there is no change in the sensible perception of the bread before and after consecration.

On the other hand if we refer to such events as at Lanciano these are correctly called “Eucharistic miracles”.
Click to expand...
You must not be Catholic.

I don’t agree with you at all.

This is the greatest miracle we have, as is the miracle that Jesus is there with the Priest at every Mass

As is the miracle we get transported to the foot of the Cross every Mass.

This is an absolute source of wonder at every level.

If you are Catholic and you’ re just not getting the vibe as we say in Aus.

My advice is to pray to God for a stronger gift of faith.

🕊️🙏
Dear God please gift BlackFriar the gift of faith, if it be your Will.

🙏🕊️
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
I am not sure that Catholic theology, strictly speaking, asserts that the Eucharistic Presence is a “miracle”.
Miracles, by the Catholic definition, must be a source of wonder at the level of sensible perception.
We all agree there is no change in the sensible perception of the bread before and after consecration.

On the other hand if we refer to such events as at Lanciano these are correctly called “Eucharistic miracles”.
Click to expand...
The Body of Christ is replicated, being totally present in each part of the continuous and whole Host, just as the human soul is present in the body. This is a miracle.
 
Roseeurekacross said:
You must not be Catholic.

I don’t agree with you at all.

This is the greatest miracle we have…
Click to expand...
Rose you make my small point…its all about the definition of words which often mean something slightly different when unimaginatively transliterated (as opposed to paraphrased) into another language, time or sub culture.

You have confused the meanings of “miracle” and “wonder”.
In Latin it seems the word “miracula” can mean either.
However in English, especially since the enlightenment, “miracle” has a very narrow meaning. It involves a wonder effected at the level of sensible perceptions. Wonders that require faith for their recognition are only “miracles” in a poetic metaphorical sense.

The article in the Catholic Encyclopedia puts this well:
The extraordinary element in the miracle — i.e. an event apart from the ordinary course of things; enables us to understand the teaching of theologians that events which ordinarily take place in the natural or supernatural course of Divine Providence are not miracles, although they are beyond the efficiency of natural forces. Thus, e.g., the creation of the soul is not a miracle, for it takes place in the ordinary course of nature. Again, the justification of the sinner, the Eucharistic Presence, the sacramental effects, are not miracles.
Click to expand...
I thank you for your prayer though your intention would perhaps be more virtuous if aimed at seeking personal humility than humiliating others who dont accord with your understanding of Catholicism.
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
40.png
BlackFriar:
I am not sure that Catholic theology, strictly speaking, asserts that the Eucharistic Presence is a “miracle”.
Miracles, by the Catholic definition, must be a source of wonder at the level of sensible perception.
We all agree there is no change in the sensible perception of the bread before and after consecration.

On the other hand if we refer to such events as at Lanciano these are correctly called “Eucharistic miracles”.
Click to expand...
The Body of Christ is replicated, being totally present in each part of the continuous and whole Host, just as the human soul is present in the body. This is a miracle.
Click to expand...
If the Catholic Encyclopedia defines the english word correctly then your above quote seems to be using the word “miracle” poetically or is a poor translation of an original Latin text.

If these are not your own words it would be professional practise to quote the source.
 
So, BlackFriar, what solution do you propose? It seems like you are trying to give us lessons on the proper use of language (specifically English) without giving the language any flexibility or credit. Do you propose we stop thinking and explaining using English?
 
Catherinabird said:
So, BlackFriar, what solution do you propose?
Click to expand...
A solution to what exactly?
I am simply observing that often problems and controversies disappear when people realise they are actually agreed but simply possess differing vocabs.

However if we cannot find common ground re the meaning of the english words and phrases we use then insoluble arguments pop up like weeds with people vainly trying to tell others that their meaning is the correct one.
Catherinabird said:
It seems like you are trying to give us lessons on the proper use of language
Click to expand...
Thats a somewhat defensive take.
I observe that there appear to be serious discrepancies in the way that different groups in both the Church and society at large define certain words and concepts in the english language. You might call that teaching you a lesson, I think someone with no set agenda would call that a fairly valid objective observation/insight worth teasing out further.
The Catholic E. quote seems to have made that observation starkly obvious to me if the topic of this thread hasnt already. The Lutheran reconciliation and healing is another crack in the wall re the same point I make about different groups being condemned simply over different groups using colloquial words differently.
Is the Catholic E. trying to teach you a lesson? I dont believe so.
Catherinabird said:
Do you propose we stop thinking and explaining using English?
Click to expand...
Again I dont understand where the negativity comes from.
How does observing that certain unhelpfully transliterated phrases from Latin into english seem to make understanding more difficult than it needs to be lead directly to such a proposal. It doesnt from what I can see.

There are many ways to avoid saying unhelpful opaque things like “there is no bread now” if it was agreed there is an apologetic barrier here that need not be there. Some suggestions have already been offered by other traditions.

But it seems we are not even at the point of going there if people here are so vehement in their understanding of english and their Catholicism that they feel the need to demonise other committed Catholics who are said to be without faith for taking the same position as Aquinas and the Catholic E. To say nothing of being derided as never having formally studied philosophy or theology simply because someone who al.egedly has strongly disagrees re these observations.
 
Last edited:
Blackfriar, I am simply and sincerely trying to understand what you are saying, why you are saying it, and where you are coming from. Maybe you do have an interesting idea about how to communicate these mysteries in a clearer way. I am also posing questions to you because I am interested in your response, which may open up a new angle to see your points.

Come to think of it, I’m not 100% sure I know what your points are. One moment it seems like we know what you are saying, and the next it is as if you have said something else entirely. I would have liked to have seen a yes or no response to De_Maria because I don’t want to assume I have figured out your answer. So far, from what I have read, I think you believe in transubstantiation, and I think you are demonstrating how inept we are at finding a common ground of language with you. But I could be wrong.

And please, do not read any attack in my words, I am telling you plainly that I am interested in figuring out what you are actually saying.
 
Catherinabird said:
Come to think of it, I’m not 100% sure I know what your points are.
Click to expand...
That is usually the case when someone with a set position is challenged to see things from a fresh perspective. New wine new wineskins and all that.
That is not usually solved by restatements on the interlopers part but by more reflection on the part of the confused. That seems to be why Pope Francis is unable to assist his Dubia Cardinals any further than he has already re AL.
Catherinabird said:
And please, do not read any attack in my words
Click to expand...
I didnt say you were attacking me.
I said you seem to think I am attacking you (“defensive”) and you and others consequently come across negatively whether you realise it or not.

It doesnt offend me overly, but it is often helpful to hold a mirror back to others as much as has already been done to me.
We all benefit from being politely reminded how we treat others.
I dont think I have treated others here as poorly as at least two contributors here have done so me…and proven to be objectively mistaken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top