Eucharistic Terms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthew_Holford
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reuben_J said:
RyanBlack - if you could answer the OP’s questions perhaps it will help in clarity of our understanding respectively. Latin Rite Catholics would probably able to answer statement 7 and therefore would think statement 8 incorrect.
Click to expand...
I am not too sure what your post is saying.

I cannot understand why you are inviting an Eastern Catholic to answer. My understanding is “transubstantiation” is a Latin Catholic issue.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
I am not too sure what your post is saying.

I cannot understand why you are inviting an Eastern Catholic to answer. My understanding is “transubstantiation” is a Latin Catholic issue.
Click to expand...
Ya are right. I guess I was carried away responding to an Eastern Catholic. 😛
 
Reuben_J said:
I am not sure about this, CTG. Transubstantiation is a church teaching. Believing and accepting that the bread and wine have become the body and blood of Christ often times accompanied by a question, how does it happen? In this case, the Church has an explanation of it, not that it hasn’t.

What about if we are asked about it? What is our answer gonna be? Shall I say, I dunno, it’s a mystery. There is a Church teaching about it but I don’t believe in it.

This subject has to be approached with faith, like in any other aspect of faith. The bottom line is, it can happen and nothing is impossible with God and therefore we believe in it. Transubstantiation is the biggest difference we have with Protestants in the subject of Holy Communion. Therefore it has to be believed no matter how difficult it may seem to be. It’s like saying, God give me faith when I am lack of it.
Click to expand...
Transubstantiation isn’t a big concept in the East. The acceptance of it varries to as little as outright rejection. My point is that Transubstantiation is not a required belief. You can believe in it or not, but ultimately what we believe in is the Real Presence of Christ. Those two are different. Our difference from Protestants is not Transubstantiation but the Real Presence of Christ. You can believe in the Real Presence without believing in Transubstantiation.

Think of it as Purgatory. Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe in the concept of Purgatory, but not in how Purgatory is taught in the West. Same for Communion. The bread and wine turns into the Body and Blood of Christ while still holding the appearance of bread and wine. How you explain that, thats where Transubstantiation comes in. And how we explain it differs from Church to Church. But ultimately what is required is we believe it is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Transubstantiation isn’t a big concept in the East. The acceptance of it varries to as little as outright rejection. My point is that Transubstantiation is not a required belief. You can believe in it or not, but ultimately what we believe in is the Real Presence of Christ. Those two are different. Our difference from Protestants is not Transubstantiation but the Real Presence of Christ. You can believe in the Real Presence without believing in Transubstantiation.

Think of it as Purgatory. Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe in the concept of Purgatory, but not in how Purgatory is taught in the West. Same for Communion. The bread and wine turns into the Body and Blood of Christ while still holding the appearance of bread and wine. How you explain that, thats where Transubstantiation comes in. And how we explain it differs from Church to Church. But ultimately what is required is we believe it is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.
Click to expand...
CTG, the OP says this is Latin Catholic issue. 🙂
 
Lancer said:


​
Transubstanriation is a doctrine of faith…not an optional belief…first declared at the Fourth Council Of Lateran (1215)…then…the Catechism quotes the Council of Trent (1560):

Transubstantiation is a doctrine that explains the Real Presence…not an option for the faithful. If you are asked how the Real Presence occurs…you have no option but Transubstantiation…agree?

Pax Christie
Click to expand...
We have to be careful that how a doctrine is defined is different from how its taught. In the same case as Purgatory as I noted, the way it is taught commonly in the West is incompatible with how it is accepted in the East. But if you read the doctrine of Purgatory, the concept is agreeable with the East. So an Eastern Catholic or an Orthodox will say they don’t believe in Purgatory, but if you discuss the concept of Purgatory as defined in Doctrine, they will agree with you on it. Same for Transubstantiation. If we say that we believe the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ and that there is no more bread or wine except for the appearance, then that is what is required belief. But to further define it would already be something extra and not required.
 
Matthew_Holford said:

  1. *]During the Holy Mass unleavened wheat bread is changed into the Sacred Body of Christ;
    *]During the Holy Mass wine is changed into the Precious Blood of Christ;

    Which of the above eight statements, if any, are incorrect, and why?
Click to expand...

  1. I realise that this does not in any way answer the original question, but I do believe the two statements above to be, not incorrect, but incomplete. The whole real presence of Christ is contained in each of the species, therefore it would perhaps have been better to phrase those two statements as ‘During the Holy Mass, unleavened wheat bread and wine are changed into the Sacred Body and Precious Blood of Christ’.

    Sorry if you think this is picky, I’m not intending to criticise, but if we’re trying to define terms accurately then I do think it’s an important distinction to make.
    [/end pointless nit-picking]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top