Does the Eucharist stop remaining bread?

[Catherinabird]

Well, I certainly do not want any restatements on your part. But simple a simple yes or no would have been very helpful.

I used the words “do not read any attack in my words” because I observed the “mirrors” you are holding up (are those mirrors helping anything?). I can see how you would think my questions are defensive, so I wanted to state plainly: I am trying to figure out what you are saying.

 

[BlackFriar]

We are both wrong.

The official term is

Mystery

Not miracle, not wonder,

Mystery.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

Forget Latin, forget colloquial

It’s the mystical sacrifice

As per Vatican documents.

Rose the only thing I explicity said was that its innapropriate to call the Eucharistic Presence a miracle. I have no axe to grind re calling it a mystery (or a wonder for that matter). In fact I explicitly called it a mystery back in post #116.

No real surprises here.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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”.

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.

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.

That is not a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, however I did read that. I am using the American English definition of miracle (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2010):

miracle, noun

1. an event or action that apparently contradicts known scientific laws and is hence thought to be due to supernatural causes, esp. to an act of God

One can taste the species like bread and wine, physical perceptions, yet really Christ.

From Catholic Encyclopedia, what I read, which I thought too complicated to present before:

…there is verified a continuous definitive multilocation, called also replication, which consists in this, that the Body of Christ is totally present in each part of the continuous and as yet unbroken Host and also totally present throughout the whole Host, just as the human soul is present in the body. And precisely this latter analogy from nature gives us an insight into the possibility of the Eucharistic miracle. For if, as has been seen above, Divine omnipotence can in a supernatural manner impart to a body such a spiritual, unextended, spatially uncircumscribed mode of presence, which is natural to the soul as regards the human body, one may well surmise the possibility of Christ’s Eucharistic Body being present in its entirety in the whole Host, and whole and entire in each part thereof.

Pohle, J. (1909). The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Neither have I, lets use correct terminology.

Catholicism is complicated and confusing enough for those looking in.

If Holy Father Pope Francis calls the Eucharist a miracle, then I shall too, if he calls the Eucharist a wonder, then I will too.

In official Vatican Documents the word used is Mystery.

.

Best one ever!

 

[Vico]

Neither have I, lets use correct terminology.

Catholicism is complicated and confusing enough for those looking in.

If Holy Father Pope Grancis calls the Eucharist a miracle, then I shall too, if he calls the Eucharist a wonder, then I will too.

In official Vatican Documents the word used is Mystery.

.

Best one ever!

From: THE EUCHARIST: SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF THE LIFE AND MISSION OF THE CHURCH
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s...0528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html#_ftnref31

The Real Presence of Jesus Christ is truly a great mystery! [28] The Second Vatican Council used the same word as the Council of Trent to describe the mystery: through transubstantiation the Lord is made present in his Body and Blood. [29] The Eastern Fathers speak of the metabolismos [30] of the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood. These are two significant ways of reconciling mystery and reason, since, as Pope Paul VI has affirmed, the Eucharistic presence “constitutes in its own way the greatest of miracles.” [31]

[28] Cf. IOANNIS PAULI II, Litt. encycl. Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17.IV.2003), 15: AAS 95 (2003), 442-443.

[29] Cf. CONC. ŒCUM. VAT. II, Const. de sacra Liturgia Sacrosanctum concilium, 7, 47; Decr. de Presbyterorum ministerio et vita Presbyterorum ordinis, 5,18; Institutionem Generalem Missalis Romani (20.IV.2000), 3.

[30] Cf., e.g., S. CYRILLI IEROSOLOMITANI, Catechesin mystagogicam, IV, 2, 1-3; IV, 7,5-6; V, 22, 5: SCh 126bis, 136. 154. 172.

[31] PAULI VI, Litt. encycl. Mysterium fidei (3.IX.1965), 26: AAS 57 (1965), 766.

 

[BlackFriar]

That is not a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia,

It is from the 1914 Edition.
If you still disagree please quote verbatim your alleged version of the 1914 Edition.

I am using the American English definition of miracle (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2010):

Please, why would you go with a secular understanding of a miracle when a clear english Catholic definition exists that well matches the Latin understanding?

 

[BlackFriar]

I think you have lost track of some of your rather dogmatic previous assertions Rose.
God bless.

 

[I_trust]

From: THE EUCHARIST: SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF THE LIFE AND MISSION OF THE CHURCH

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s...0528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html#_ftnref31

The Real Presence of Jesus Christ is truly a great mystery! [28] The Second Vatican Council used the same word as the Council of Trent to describe the mystery: through transubstantiation the Lord is made present in his Body and Blood. [29] The Eastern Fathers speak of the metabolismos [30] of the bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood. These are two significant ways of reconciling mystery and reason, since, as Pope Paul VI has affirmed, the Eucharistic presence “constitutes in its own way the greatest of miracles.” [31]

Thank you Vico for providing that link from the Vatican document which twice refers to the Eucharist as a miracle. I am sure there are many other official documents that do so as well.

 

[I_trust]

I dont think I have treated others here as poorly as at least two contributors here have done so me…and proven to beobjectively mistaken.

Who is been proven to be “objectively” mistaken"?

As Vico documented the Church in Her official documents has called the Eucharist a miracle.

Are you asserting also that you have proven (in your words)…
“In English it simply does not make sense to say the bread is no longer present.
It clearly is still present just as it always was and as it always will be.”

Because, I do not believe you have proven it. It is your opinion. We all agree that the appearance or “accidents” remain, that should be obvious to all. We do not agree that we should then say that the bread and wine remain because English words, and are understanding of them, is so superficial that a complex idea can not be conveyed.

It is obvious that the Church in her documents has no problem expressing in English the following…

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm
The whole Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine—the glorified Christ who rose from the dead after dying for our sins. This is what the Church means when she speaks of the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist

Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine?
Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present. Thus in the Eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ, while the wine ceases to be wine in substance, and becomes the Blood of Christ. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, " This bread is my body," but " This is my body" ( Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5).

So the question of the original post on this subject has been addressed directly by the Church in English…

Original post….

Does the Eucharist stop remaining bread?

Quote in English by the USCCB document linked above…

Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine?
Yes.

As to the way you have been treated…
I do agree that some have jumped to conclusions about you, and have said harsh things.
If my statements have been harsh, I sincerely apologize.
I know that I personally have a difficult time presenting my views without being strident.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

As Pauline Hansen says please explain

Do You disagree that the correct word as used by the Vatican, and read in Vico’s document is mystery? And then I read the word Miracle!

So we can say now, both miracle and mystery.

Can we find wonder too?

Apologies to Holy Father Pope Francis for missing spell check.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

That is not a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia,

It is from the 1914 Edition.
If you still disagree please quote verbatim your alleged version of the 1914 Edition.

I am using the American English definition of miracle (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2010):

Please, why would you go with a secular understanding of a miracle when a clear english Catholic definition exists that well matches the Latin understanding?

This one from Modern Catholic Dictionary is acceptable. Do you have another version that you use:

MIRACLE. A sensibly perceptible effect, surpassing at least the powers of visible nature, produced by God to witness to some truth or testify to someone’s sanctity. (Etym. Latin miraculum, miracle, marvel; from mirari, to wonder.)

In the Catholic Encylopedia it is defined:

Miracle
(Latin miraculum, from mirari, “to wonder”).

In general, a wonderful thing, the word being so used in classical Latin; in a specific sense, the Latin Vulgate designates by miracula wonders of a peculiar kind, expressed more clearly in the Greek text by the terms terata, dynameis, semeia, i.e., wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God.

Driscoll, J.T. (1911). Miracle. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm

 

[BlackFriar]

Miracle

(Latin miraculum, from mirari, “to wonder”).

In general, a wonderful thing, the word being so used in classical Latin; in a specific sense, the Latin Vulgate designates by miracula wonders of a peculiar kind, expressed more clearly in the Greek text by the terms terata, dynameis, semeia, i.e., wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God.

Driscoll, J.T. (1911). Miracle. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm

Perhaps we have lost focus of the point I am challenging you on. You stated:

That is not a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia

Well my quote from the Cath Encyclopedia is easily found in the link you just provided above.
So why would you say it is not from the CE?

 

[BlackFriar]

I am sure there are many other official documents that do so as well.

Actually it seems very few Popes have themselves used the Latin word “miracula” for the Real Presence.

The words you refer to in the above document (which is neither an Encyclical nor an AE) are either :
(a) a quote from St John Chrysostom from the very early Church where “miracula” hardly means what it does in modern Latin let alone an English translation;
(b) speaking of the miracle of the loaves and fishes which is not about the Real Presence;
(d) quoting an much earlier Encyclical.

The “affirmation” by Pope PVI in Mysterium Fidei is not actually his own words either. He simply quotes a much earlier Encyclical still (Mirae Caritatis Leo XIII).

In that Encyclical Pope Leo only uses the word “miracula” for the Real Presence twice.

Given the traditional Catholic theological definition of “miracle”, which has not changed since Aquinas, that the Real Presence is not properly an example, then two apparent contrary instances by a single Pope since then “doth not Spring make” I suggest.

As previously mentioned the ancient Latin word “mirabilis” or “miracula” simply meant “wonder” and there is every reason to believe Pope Leo is hardly denying the definition of Aquinas and tradition since then but is validly using the root Latin meaning of the word (“wonder”). Only since the Enlightenment and Deism has the derived english word (miracle) received a much tighter meaning than “wonder”.

If you can find many more Magisterial Documents since Aquinas that use “miracula” re the RPresence I would be interested.

 

[Vico]

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.

In my post I am referring to my own quote as not being a quote from the Catholic Encylopedia. It was:

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.

What were you referring to?

 

[BlackFriar]

If you accept that my definition of “miracle” (and that the Real Presence is not a strict miracle) is to be found in the CE then all good thanks.

 

[Vico]

If you accept that my definition of “miracle” (and that the Real Presence is not a strict miracle) is to be found in the CE then all good thanks.

I scanned all you posts in this thread to find the Catholic Encyclopedia quote you gave and it is from Miracle (not The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist), shown below, and states that it is the sense used by theologians. So then I agree using that sense of the word miracle refers to natural or supernatural events that are not ordinary. Catholic Encyclopedia does not use the same sense of the word throughout, as one can read in the second quote below.

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.

Driscoll, J.T. (1911). Miracle. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm

… the law of the indestructibility of matter, notwithstanding the miracle of the Eucharistic conversion, remains in force without any interruption.

Pohle, J. (1909). The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Directing attention to the thread topic, I will mention that when I receive Communion (I am Byzantine Catholic) I say before:

May the partaking of Your Holy mysteries, O Lord, be not for my judgment or condemnation, but for the healing of my soul and body. O Lord, I also believe and profess that this, which I am about to receive, is truly Your most precious body and Your life-giving blood, which, I pray, make me worthy to receive for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting. Amen.

 

[BlackFriar]

Of course the RP is a supernatural event. But theologically, which is surely what discussions on transubstantiation are, it is not properly called a miracle by the english use of that word.

However the Latin word “miracula” has a variety of meanings just as “caelum” (sky, Empyrian) does. Its classical meaning is simply any wonder. Popes of the past appear to have sometimes used the word in its classical root meaning.

From the time of Aquinas it has tended to mean only wonders that arise from sense perceptions out of the ordinary. In Catholic english it means the latter primarily, especially in theology.

However, as is obvious, words at colloquial level tend to have blurred boundaries in common use which are often at odds with uses in other circles.

Which was my small observation in the first place on this thread.
To say the bread is transformed into Jesus doesnt intrinsically necessitate that we say bread no longer exists…for to the senses it surely does continue to exist.

If some communities use language in such a way that their words are defined by sense perception (as we agree even theologians accept re the word miracle) then saying the bread is no longer there may be poor apologetics for groups who think that way.

 

[BlackFriar]

Directing attention to the thread topic, I will mention that when I receive Communion (I am Byzantine Catholic) I say before:

Does your rite use “bread” expressions unfamiliar to Romans?
eg “Bread of Mystery”.

 

[KevinK]

This is my body. Not this represents my body. Jesus said this IS my body

Jesus also said he “is the door”. Not that he represents a door, Jesus said he IS the door. Does that mean he is a door?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Directing attention to the thread topic, I will mention that when I receive Communion (I am Byzantine Catholic) I say before:

Does your rite use “bread” expressions unfamiliar to Romans?
eg “Bread of Mystery”.

In the Byzantine tradition the Sacraments are called the Holy Mysteries.

St. John Chrysostom (Homily 7 on First Corinthians) explains:

And in another sense, too, a mystery is so called; because we do not behold the things which we see, but some things we see and others we believe.

http://www.newadvent.com/fathers/220107.htm