You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jesuit head of Asian Catholic news agency criticizes transubstantiation [CWN]
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
JuanVelarde
Guest
I don’t know that I have ever met a Jesuit priest, and I don’t really know what is going on here, but it seems to me that many a scandalous headline revolves around what I always believed was a fine, upstanding religious order. It really troubles me that these are often the teachers in many of our “Catholic” universities. As a parent of teen and younger children, I find it disconcerting in my effort to find a good college for them to attend.
Is this just an attempt by some to besmirch a faithful and influential Catholic order or is there really something there?
Is this just an attempt by some to besmirch a faithful and influential Catholic order or is there really something there?
S
Stylites
Guest
The writer seems to be pointing out that Jesus is to be encountered within the Christian community and from Scripture, as well as in the Sacraments, and offers a concern on the upcoming reform of liturgical language.
.
.
J
JuanVelarde
Guest
I don’t know that I agree that the sacred Body and Blood of our Lord can be venerated too much. But my concern is about all the things I read in the headlines. It seems that someone is trying to drag the good name of a great order though the mud or there may be something there. So many Jesuit schools are involved in scandal and allegations of disobedience that it has me very concerned.
N
nurselisa99
Guest
I know I am not a theological scholar, but I thought a basic tenet of the Catholic faith was that we believe when Jesus Christ said “This is my body which shall be given up for you” that he was speaking literally. This priest thinks he knows better than Jesus Christ? That’s a dangerous game, in my opinion. A very old priest came to our parish to say mass and he made the comparison between Jesus saying to the water “Be still” and also to the wind when he was in the boat with the apostles and when he said “This is my body”. He wasn’t speaking metaphorically to the water, and when he commanded, it was still. So he was not speaking metaphorically about the bread, and it became his body. I could understand this in my limited intelligence, so where did this guy go to school?
N
Nagoda
Guest
If I understand what he is saying correctly, he is saying that the dogma of the real presence needs to be expanded upon in order to be in agreement with what we know about modern science. If I understand hsi line of thought, we could argue that the Church, when it came through with the dogma of transubstantiation, did so with its best understanding of science at the time. Now that Aristotelian physics have been made obsolete by quantum physics as the good Father in the article suggests, the Church now needs to EXPAND the dogma of the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. This would not deny the Real Presence, but give us a deeper understanding of how the change occurs in conjunction with science.
This is not to say that the Church erred when it formed the dogma of transubstantiation, how could she? She had no knowledge of quantum physics when she was formulating the revelation and did the best she could with the knowledge she possessed. The dogma now needs to be revealed further upon by God, if He so chooses to do so, so that the Church can have a better dogmatic formulation that is in accordance with modern science. I say get the Pope and the Bishops and the theologians and scientists together to hash this one out, it would be most interesting to see an updated formulation of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
This is not to say that the Church erred when it formed the dogma of transubstantiation, how could she? She had no knowledge of quantum physics when she was formulating the revelation and did the best she could with the knowledge she possessed. The dogma now needs to be revealed further upon by God, if He so chooses to do so, so that the Church can have a better dogmatic formulation that is in accordance with modern science. I say get the Pope and the Bishops and the theologians and scientists together to hash this one out, it would be most interesting to see an updated formulation of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
T
TMC
Guest
This is an extraordinarily misleading article. Read what the priest actually said. He is talking about translations and choice of words - he is not denying Catholic doctrine.
J
JimG
Guest
He is criticizing transubstantiation? Does he think that we should just not “do” it anymore?
J
JimG
Guest
Hmmm, he says that transubstantiation is “inadequately described,” in a “post-Newtonian world of quantum physics.”
He also says that the Eucharist “carries the intellectual baggage of a physics no one accepts.”
But the Eucharist has nothing to do with physics, nor does transubstantiation.
The point is that with regard to any object, the appearances or accidents are what are perceptible to our senses–no matter what physics you use. And the substance, as used in the doctrine of transubstantiation, cannot be directly touched in any case.
If you analyze the experience of one’s interaction with any object, you can break it down to the molecular level, the atomic level, the subatomic level, the string or brane level–at what point do you come into “contact” with the underlying substance in the Aristotelian sense? You don’t. You only receive a variety of sense impressions, either from the impact of an object on your senses, or upon scientific intsruments. All those are appearances, accidents.
There is no problem–unless one wishes to reduce transubstantiation to to a chemical or physical reaction, which it is not.
He also says that the Eucharist “carries the intellectual baggage of a physics no one accepts.”
But the Eucharist has nothing to do with physics, nor does transubstantiation.
The point is that with regard to any object, the appearances or accidents are what are perceptible to our senses–no matter what physics you use. And the substance, as used in the doctrine of transubstantiation, cannot be directly touched in any case.
If you analyze the experience of one’s interaction with any object, you can break it down to the molecular level, the atomic level, the subatomic level, the string or brane level–at what point do you come into “contact” with the underlying substance in the Aristotelian sense? You don’t. You only receive a variety of sense impressions, either from the impact of an object on your senses, or upon scientific intsruments. All those are appearances, accidents.
There is no problem–unless one wishes to reduce transubstantiation to to a chemical or physical reaction, which it is not.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I agree. It would be startling if he did reject transubstantiation, but in his article, if anything he is talking about its importance.This is an extraordinarily misleading article. Read what the priest actually said. He is talking about translations and choice of words - he is not denying Catholic doctrine.
ucanews.com/2010/05/24/whats-in-a-word/
Catholic World News is usually reliable, but I think they misreported on this.
C
CathFaith1
Guest
The Priest has some very problematic text below,
The Feast of Corpus Christi provides an opportunity to focus on what Vatican II described as the “source and summit of the Church’s life.” Catholics can become fanatical about one form of the Body of Christ in the bread of the Eucharist as the REAL presence of Christ.
However, it is the unambiguous teaching of the Church that this is only one form of the real presence of Christ. The other real presences of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist are found in the gathering of the community, in the proclamation and reception of the Word of God and in the hearts and prayers of believers gathered in His Name.
Regrettably, all too frequently, the only Presence focused on is Christ’s presence in the elements of bread and wine
T
TMC
Guest
I disagree. I think he is exactly right. He is saying that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is real and important, but Catholics cannot forget that Christ told us He is present to us in other ways - in the Church, in our community, in every person we meet. The Eucharist is an important focus for Catholics, but if we see Christ only there, we are missing most of our opportunities to encounter Him.The Priest has some very problematic text below,
C
CathFaith1
Guest
**CCC 1374 **
I’d say the above teaching of the Church may be where the author complains, “Catholics can become fanatical about one form of the Body of Christ in the bread of the Eucharist as the REAL presence of Christ.”The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. **It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “**This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”
S
SisterSnowflake
Guest
Hmmm… maybe we could tweak his words just a bit:The Priest has some very problematic text below…
However, it is the unambiguous teaching of the Church that this is only one form of the real presence of Christ. The other real presences of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist are found in the gathering of the community, in the proclamation and reception of the Word of God and in the hearts and prayers of believers gathered in His Name.
*Regrettably, all too frequently, the only Presence focused on is Christ’s presence in the elements of bread and wine *
“Regrettably, all too frequently these days, the only Presence *WE FAIL TO focus on *is Christ’s presence in the Eucharist because we are far too busy with focusing on the gathering of the community, etc.”
As a convert and a theology teacher, I am acutely aware of how far too often the focus is “all about us” and so awfully many Catholics don’t even know that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. Very sad!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.