Eucharistic SIGN vs.SYMBOL?

[st_felicity]

Is there a distinction between “sign” and “symbol” as it relates to the Eucharist?

The Eucharist is really and truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ Jesus, nevertheless, the species of bread and wine are signs/symbols. Before the consecration, they are signs/symbols of Gods gifts to man and the work of human hands. After the consecration, the species themselves are in reality transubstantiated to Christ, but still the outward appearance remains. When the priest in Personae Christi lifts the bread and says “this is my body,” we see the bread and think of Christ’s Body. When he lifts the cup and says, “this is my blood,” likewise we see the wine and think of the Blood of Christ. At that point–it IS Christ’s Body and Blood whole and complete in each species–not the bread became the Body and the wine became the Blood.

Here’s my question:

When describing what we humans see and what it actually is, and explaining why we have the two species available at Mass, what is the best way to express the multiplicity of meaning contained within the species offered.

I’m thinking before consecration, “symbol” is the best word. After consecration, “sign.”

Is it that symbols “represent” something that in reality is not what it is, and signs point to a reality?

 

[Cluny]

In Patristic Greek, a symbol is in fact the thing signified.

It is not a mere empty emblem of A merely standing for B.

The very word “symbol” means “to bring together.”

So to oppose “sign” and “symbol” is to make a false dichotomy.

 

[st_felicity]

In Patristic Greek, a symbol is in fact the thing signified.

It is not a mere empty emblem of A merely standing for B.

The very word “symbol” means “to bring together.”

So to oppose “sign” and “symbol” is to make a false dichotomy.

So you say they are basically synonymous? Either word would effectively describe the physical appearance representing and pointing to the essential reality of the Eucharist?

Also–I don’t know what “Patristic Greek” is, would you explain?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

So you say they are basically synonymous? Either word would effectively describe the physical appearance representing and pointing to the essential reality of the Eucharist?

More precisely, the words describe a reality, they do not point to a reality.

Also–I don’t know what “Patristic Greek” is, would you explain?

The term “patristic” refers to the era of the Church Fathers so “Patrisic Greek” would refer to the Greek used by those Fathers.

Deacon Ed

 

[st_felicity]

More precisely, the words describe a reality, they do not point to a reality.

To be more clear about my goal in asking this question, I’m not specifically talking about the words themselves, I’m rather trying to figure out the most precise and specific way to explain that reality that is such a multiplicity of meaning.

I was talking with some Catholics and non Catholics about this aspect of the Eucharist and I used the word “symbolism” and the Catholics got nervous by that word. I suppose it’s because our Protestant brethren ONLY see the symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and Catholics know the literal Presence and they were afraid I’d confuse them. ???

How would you express most precisely why both the Body and the Blood are offered at Mass if the whole of Christ is truly present in every particle and every drop?

The term “patristic” refers to the era of the Church Fathers so “Patrisic Greek” would refer to the Greek used by those Fathers.

Deacon Ed

Thank you.

 

[passus]

How would you express most precisely why both the Body and the Blood are offered at Mass if the whole of Christ is truly present in every particle and every drop?

The presence of both species at Mass makes more real to us the entirety of the presence of the body–as well as–the blood of Jesus.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

To be more clear about my goal in asking this question, I’m not specifically talking about the words themselves, I’m rather trying to figure out the most precise and specific way to explain that reality that is such a multiplicity of meaning.

I was talking with some Catholics and non Catholics about this aspect of the Eucharist and I used the word “symbolism” and the Catholics got nervous by that word. I suppose it’s because our Protestant brethren ONLY see the symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and Catholics know the literal Presence and they were afraid I’d confuse them. ???

Yes, both the terms “sign” and “symbol” relate to a specific and very precise philosophical understanding. If one is not versed in these terms they make no sense. Many Catholics get upset with references to the Eucharist as “symbol” (or "sign) because they use the common definitions for these terms. Therefore, in discussion with people who do no know the philosophical terms – don’t use them!

One can simply say that Jesus is really present under the form of bread and wine in a way that we cannot understand, but a presence that is real and not symbolic. I’d stay away from terms like “substance” and “accident” as well for those, too, have philosophical meanings that are not consistent with the common definitions.

When speaking of Jesus present you could say that we cannot “divide” Jesus, where his body is there is his blood and vice versa. Jesus is wholly present, although not physically in the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine.

Deacon Ed

 

[jpjd]

How would you express most precisely why both the Body and the Blood are offered at Mass if the whole of Christ is truly present in every particle and every drop?

The separate consecration of the Body and Blood is a sign of Christ’s death, and the when the priest breaks a piece of the Host and drops it into the chalice, it is a sign of Christ’s resurrection. Christ is full present body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Precious Body as well as the Precious Blood, but both are offered to the laity as a fuller sign of Christ’s resurrection.

 

[st_felicity]

The separate consecration of the Body and Blood is a sign of Christ’s death, and the when the priest breaks a piece of the Host and drops it into the chalice, it is a sign of Christ’s resurrection.

That is interesting–I hadn’t heard that explained like that.

Christ is full present body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Precious Body as well as the Precious Blood, but both are offered to the laity as a fuller sign of Christ’s resurrection.

Thank you–I basically said that, but I used the word “symbol” rather than “sign.” I’ll just be more clear about it and use the word sign–it seems to be less “exciting” than symbol/symbolism.

 

[tifischer]

Is there a distinction between “sign” and “symbol” as it relates to the Eucharist?

The Eucharist is really and truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ Jesus, nevertheless, the species of bread and wine are signs/symbols. Before the consecration, they are signs/symbols of Gods gifts to man and the work of human hands. After the consecration, the species themselves are in reality transubstantiated to Christ, but still the outward appearance remains. When the priest in Personae Christi lifts the bread and says “this is my body,” we see the bread and think of Christ’s Body. When he lifts the cup and says, “this is my blood,” likewise we see the wine and think of the Blood of Christ. At that point–it IS Christ’s Body and Blood whole and complete in each species–not the bread became the Body and the wine became the Blood.

Here’s my question:

When describing what we humans see and what it actually is, and explaining why we have the two species available at Mass, what is the best way to express the multiplicity of meaning contained within the species offered.

I’m thinking before consecration, “symbol” is the best word. After consecration, “sign.”

Is it that symbols “represent” something that in reality is not what it is, and signs point to a reality?

Symbol -A person, place, action, word, or thing that (by association, resemblance, or convention) represents something other than itself. Verb: symbolize. Adjective: symbolic. (grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/symbolterm.htm)

Metaphor - A trope or figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something in common. Adjective: metaphorical. (grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/metaphorterm.htm)

So, you see in grammar if the object that is being compared represents something other than itself then it is a symbol…otherwise the compared objects are similar sharing some characteristics but are not identical in nature…they may be said to be “like” one another and called a metaphor. Clearly Jesus is something else, neither symbol nor metaphor by definition. The bread is changed so that in Holy Communion it is Jesus’ body we serve and no longer bread although the elements of bread may still exist as a sign.

A sign is not the same thing as a symbol. A symbol by definition is not what it represents, otherwise it would be a metaphor. A sign may or may not be what it represents because it is not a grammatical technique, it is something that signifies a meaning…regardless of if it does so as an analogy, metaphor, a symbol or some other form of speech. I am not really fond of the idea of fitting the body and blood into a grammatical meaning beyond that the body and blood IS Jesus. To try to understand it in a grammatical sense would only detract form the reality of transubstantiation…that God has really changed the bread and wine because not one grammatical technique that I can think of alludes to the fact that the object really is what it is said to be because it changed.

If the bread in communion were a symbol of anything it would have to be a symbol of manna. The comparison of manna to Jesus would be symbolic…manna is a metaphor of bread (nourishment of flesh) from heaven (sky) because it did not sustain life…those who ate manna died. Jesus is not a metaphor of bread from heaven, He is bread (nourishment of life) from heaven (heaven) giving eternal life. Anyone who eats bread as a symbol of Jesus would be more accurate to call it manna than Jesus. The wine of the passover of Moses were symbols. If anyone drinks wine as a symbol of God saving them, then they are celebrating the Jewish passover of Moses’ time…they are celebrating the cup of Moses’ passover. The wine at passover at the time of Jesus was already a symbol of Moses’ passover, why would Jesus say this is new if it were the same symbol of God saves? Unless, it really is His blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins…then it would have to be something different, really God’s blood saves and not a symbol of God saves with Lambs blood anymore. To eat bread and drink wine as a symbol would be the Jewish tradition of Moses’ exodus. To eat bread and wine after it has been transubstantiated into the body and blood of Jesus is Christianity.