Luther's Consubstantiation .... or Catholicism's Transubstantiation

[Luvtosew]

I got this off the net somewhere, see it sounds like a spiritual presence to me.

Introduction to Christianity
Josheph Cardinal Ratzinger
p 356-358 c. The question of the resurrected body

Let us start from verse 50 (1Cor15), which seems to me to be
a sort of key to the whole:“I tell you this, bretheren:flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit
the imperishable.” It seems to me that the sentence occupies much the
same position in this text as verse 63 occupies in the eucharistic
chapter 6 of St.Johns Gospel: for these two seemingly widely separated
texts are much more closely related than is apparant at first sight.
There in St. John, it says, just after the real presence of the flesh
and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist has been sharply emphasized;
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” in both
the Johannnine and the Pauline texts, it is a question of developing
the Christian realism of “the flesh”. In John the realism of the
sacraments, that is, the realism of Jesus’ Resurrection and of his
“flesh” that comes to us from it, is emphasized; in “flesh”, of the
resurrection of Christians and of the salvation achieved for us in it.
But both passages also contain a sharp counterpoint that emphasizes
Christian realism as realism beyond the physical world, realism of the
Holy Spirit, as opposed to a purely worldly, quasi-physical realism.

Here English cannot fully convey the enigmatic character of the
biblical Greek. In Greek the word soma means something like
“body”, but at the same time is also means “the itself”.
and this soma can be sarx, that is, “body” in the earthly historical,
and thus chemical-physical terms, can, again, appear definitively
in the guise of a transphysical reality.
In Pauls language “body” and “spirit” are not the opposites; the
opposites are called “physical body” and “spiritual body”. We do
not need to try here to pursue the complicated historical and
philosphical problems posed by this.
One thing at any rate may be fairly clear; both John (6:63) and Paul
(1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the “resurrection
of the flesh”, the “resurrection of the body”, is not a “resurrection
of physical bodies.” Thus from the point of view of modern thought
the Pauline sketch is far less naive than later theological
erudition with its subtle ways of construing how there can be
eternal physical bodies.
To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
“fleshly body”, that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible “the perishable cannot become
imperishable”), but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.}

 

[clmowry]

???

I got this off the net somewhere, see it sounds like a spiritual presence to me.

Introduction to Christianity
Josheph Cardinal Ratzinger
p 356-358 c. The question of the resurrected body

Let us start from verse 50 (1Cor15), which seems to me to be
a sort of key to the whole:“I tell you this, bretheren:flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit
the imperishable.” It seems to me that the sentence occupies much the
same position in this text as verse 63 occupies in the eucharistic
chapter 6 of St.Johns Gospel: for these two seemingly widely separated
texts are much more closely related than is apparant at first sight.
There in St. John, it says, just after the real presence of the flesh
and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist has been sharply emphasized;
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” in both
the Johannnine and the Pauline texts, it is a question of developing
the Christian realism of “the flesh”. In John the realism of the
sacraments, that is, the realism of Jesus’ Resurrection and of his
“flesh” that comes to us from it, is emphasized; in “flesh”, of the
resurrection of Christians and of the salvation achieved for us in it.
But both passages also contain a sharp counterpoint that emphasizes
Christian realism as realism beyond the physical world, realism of the
Holy Spirit, as opposed to a purely worldly, quasi-physical realism.

Here English cannot fully convey the enigmatic character of the
biblical Greek. In Greek the word soma means something like
“body”, but at the same time is also means “the itself”.
and this soma can be sarx, that is, “body” in the earthly historical,
and thus chemical-physical terms, can, again, appear definitively
in the guise of a transphysical reality.
In Pauls language “body” and “spirit” are not the opposites; the
opposites are called “physical body” and “spiritual body”. We do
not need to try here to pursue the complicated historical and
philosphical problems posed by this.
One thing at any rate may be fairly clear; both John (6:63) and Paul
(1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the “resurrection
of the flesh”, the “resurrection of the body”, is not a “resurrection
of physical bodies.” Thus from the point of view of modern thought
the Pauline sketch is far less naive than later theological
erudition with its subtle ways of construing how there can be
eternal physical bodies.
To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
“fleshly body”, that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible “the perishable cannot become
imperishable”), but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.}

 

[Luvtosew]

???

You have to read the whole thing.

 

[clmowry]

You have to read the whole thing.

Yes. What was said that refutes the highlighted sentence?

Chuck

 

[Luvtosew]

Yes. What was said that refutes the highlighted sentence?

Chuck

You need to take away from it what you take away from it, I have taken away the spiritual presence, so its up to you.

 

[clmowry]

You need to take away from it what you take away from it, I have taken away the spiritual presence, so its up to you.

Ah Sola Scriptura as applied to all literature then.

Chuck

 

[Verbum_Caro]

You need to take away from it what you take away from it, I have taken away the spiritual presence, so its up to you.

If you take away that, ought you not also take away an opinion that you qwonmt be physically resurrected? Do you hold that?

VC

 

[Luvtosew]

Hey folks I didn’t write that, you’ll have to ask Pope Benedick what he meant.
But as I told the last poster one can just take a sentence or a verse out
of something but needs to read the whole thing.

One thing at any rate may be fairly clear; both John (6:63) and Paul
(1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the “resurrection
of the flesh”, the “resurrection of the body”, is not a “resurrection
of physical bodies.” Thus from the point of view of modern thought
the Pauline sketch is far less naive than later theological
erudition with its subtle ways of construing how there can be
eternal physical bodies.
To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
“fleshly body”, that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible “the perishable cannot become
imperishable”), but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.}

Like I said take it how you want. With all the different opinions on the Eucharist it sure doesn’t seem to matter does it. I said how I take it.

Oh I think we’ll have glorified bodies, not like what we have now.

 

[Nita]

Hey folks I didn’t write that, you’ll have to ask Pope Benedick what he meant.
But as I told the last poster one can just take a sentence or a verse out
of something but needs to read the whole thing.

One thing at any rate may be fairly clear; both John (6:63) and Paul
(1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the “resurrection
of the flesh”, the “resurrection of the body”, is not a “resurrection
of physical bodies.” Thus from the point of view of modern thought
the Pauline sketch is far less naive than later theological
erudition with its subtle ways of construing how there can be
eternal physical bodies.
To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
“fleshly body”, that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible “the perishable cannot become
imperishable”),** but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord**.}

Like I said take it how you want. With all the different opinions on the Eucharist it sure doesn’t seem to matter does it. I said how I take it.

Oh I think we’ll have glorified bodies, not like what we have now.

And that’s what the Pope’s words mean also.
It won’t be a resurrection of flesh biologically like the body we have now, for biologically, this type of body is perishable. Rather, it will be in a different form, like that “shown in the risen Lord”.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

it will be in a different form, like that “shown in the risen Lord”.

Nita,

Excellent point. Or you might say “same real body, In a different mode”.

And that also seems possibly appilicable to something else.

VC

 

[Philthy]

1.) Because … the ordinary accidents of bread & wine removed … and the ‘consecrated’ Eucharistic flesh & blood revealed, to show forth His Real Presence…

Correct, and the point is that this event is different than what happens at Mass every Sunday. Normally, the accidents of bread and wine remain, but a Luciano a unique miracle occurred. That is why Luciano is considered “miraculous” in a way that Mass is not.

These facts are in direct opposition to your claim that if we looked at a consecrated host under a microscope we would see a “pluripotent stem cell” or some other physical component of Christ’s mortal body.

I agree with Nita that you might want to take a step back and carefully review what is meant by the terms the Church uses for her description of what occurs - and what does not occur - in transubstantiation.

Blessings!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Philthy,

brb3 took me to task for saying that he or she made such a claim. I had orginally called it a hypothesis but later shorthanded it to claim, which carries I think more weight than brb3 intended to give his or her supposition. Just FYI.

VC

 

[brb3]

These facts are in direct opposition to your claim that if we looked at a consecrated host under a microscope we would see a “pluripotent stem cell” or some other physical component of Christ’s mortal body.

:nope: Cite the Post # … to support your claim.

But, I said the stem cell might well fit Nita’s analogy of Acorn : Tree.
Never said that an exam with microscope [or any other lab technique for that matter], of the Eucharist would reveal stem cells, hair, nails, etc … as VC inquired of me. In fact, I said I would never put the Lord to the test … it would be foolish to try, as we can only find him if he reveals himself to us. But, if we truly seek him, we can be confident he will do so… [per scriptures].

I will tell you what I believe about the Eucharist, and I think it is supportable by Trent. Christ is there … Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity. However, we cannot see or perceive his physical persona. No one has seen Christ since his Ascension. But, nonetheless, Catholicism doesn’t teach a divided Christ. It teaches Christ in the Eucharist, the GOD-Man, as B/B/S/D ! But, we can only perceive the Spirit of Christ … the accidents don’t reveal his physical presence to our senses.

Some have heard his voice … Paul and those with him on Damascus Road heard Christ. Paul saw the brilliance of Christ, the blinding light, but could not see the Resurrected Christ like the 12 did prior to the Ascension. It is clear that Christ’s Resurrected Body is Miraculous. Still resembling our own, retaining the scars of Calvary, able to receive earthly foods, able to hold and be held, yet able to pass thru solid objects w/o resistance. And, able to levitate, the Lord in total command of the scientific laws He created.

Now, you and the others here, who dispute the humanity [physical aspects] of Christ in the Eucharist, need to realize Christ can be whereever he wishes … while maintaining invisibility to our 5 senses. Nevertheless, he allows us to receive him, B/B/S/D, via the visible/perceptible Bread & Wine, nourishing our Bodies/Souls … just as did for the Mosaic Hebrews, via the Manna and meat of Quail. And, it appears in a few cases regarding the Eucharist, the Lord allowed flesh & blood be visible … to amaze/convince those who had doubts.

Am I wrong ?

 

[brb3]

Introduction to Christianity
Josheph Cardinal Ratzinger
p 356-358 c. The question of the resurrected body

Let us start from verse 50 (1Cor15), which seems to me to be
a sort of key to the whole:“I tell you this, bretheren:flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit
the imperishable.” It seems to me that the sentence occupies much the
same position in this text as verse 63 occupies in the eucharistic
chapter 6 of St.Johns Gospel: for these two seemingly widely separated
texts are much more closely related than is apparant at first sight.
There in St. John, it says, just after the real presence of the flesh
and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist has been sharply emphasized;
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” in both
the Johannnine and the Pauline texts, it is a question of developing
the Christian realism of “the flesh”. In John the realism of the
sacraments, that is, the realism of Jesus’ Resurrection and of his
“flesh” that comes to us from it, is emphasized; in “flesh”, of the
resurrection of Christians and of the salvation achieved for us in it.
But both passages also contain a sharp counterpoint that emphasizes
Christian realism as realism beyond the physical world, realism of the
Holy Spirit, as opposed to a purely worldly, quasi-physical realism.

Here English cannot fully convey the enigmatic character of the
biblical Greek. In Greek the word soma means something like
“body”, but at the same time is also means “the itself”.
and this soma can be sarx, that is, “body” in the earthly historical,
and thus chemical-physical terms, can, again, appear definitively
in the guise of a transphysical reality.
In Pauls language “body” and “spirit” are not the opposites; the
opposites are called “physical body” and “spiritual body”. We do
not need to try here to pursue the complicated historical and
philosphical problems posed by this.
One thing at any rate may be fairly clear; both John (6:63) and Paul
(1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the “resurrection
of the flesh”, the “resurrection of the body”, is not a “resurrection
of physical bodies.” Thus from the point of view of modern thought
the Pauline sketch is far less naive than later theological
erudition with its subtle ways of construing how there can be
eternal physical bodies.
To recapitulate, Paul teaches, not the resurection of physical bodies, but
the resurrection of persons, and this not in the return of the
“fleshly body”, that is, the biological structure, an idea he
expressly describes as impossible “the perishable cannot become
imperishable”), but in the different form of the life of the
resurrection, as shown in the risen Lord.}

Yes, spiritual … except Benedict’s not talking the Eucharist Sacrament here. Find him or JP2 talking on Transubstantiation, and that would be cogent to the thread topic …

 

[brb3]

It depends on what you mean.

Without a doubt, we know that if we receive Holy Communion at Mass we receive the whole Christ, including that self-same body which was born of the Virgin Mary, crucified and resurrected.

So, 3.) both is the probably the best answer,

Self-same body … born of the Virgin, suffer & died for our sakes, raised incorruptible on the 3rd, spoke and ate with the 12, allowed them to handle his physical, marred body, yet able to rule over the world He created, every scientific law subject to his command, present FULLY in the Eucharist, indivisible B/B/S/D.

 

[brb3]

Essentially, you are saying that in Trent, the Church taught against the very thing it proclaimed, which was that “after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things.”

In essence, you seem to be saying that Christ is not substantially present under each species (of bread and wine) but that Christ is substantially present under the species of flesh and blood that only appears to be the species of bread and wine.

U misunderstand. Trent was addressing the beliefs/teachings of Luther & those teaching Consubstantiation & other things not c/w Transubstantiation. Luther was teaching ‘co-existance’ of bread/wine … along with Christ. Both bread/wine AND Christ being/sharing their SUBSTANCES in the Eucharist. Luther teaching that once the Eucharist was served … the Supper lost it’s miraculous nature, being just ordinary bread/wine.

Lutherans used the words [beneath, with, in, under, etc] … to convey the idea of the co-existance. Trent said NO to this teaching. The Council taught that upon Consecration, the bread/wine was TRANSFORMED into Christ … only their appearances/accidents remained. Thus, Christ was Truly Present UNDER their appearances/accidents/species … but, NOT the substance of bread/wine.

 

[brb3]

Because some people don’t have enough faith to believe that His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity can be truly, really, sacramentally and substantially present without it also being present tangibly in some way.

U like to use the word ‘tangibly’ I think you mean it to mean ANY of our five senses, not just touch ?

 

[brb3]

It certainly doesn’t say the Eucharistic presence endures even after the species of bread and wine no longer exist.

Any part of a consecrated host that no longer has the species/accidents of bread and wine no longer contains the “Eucharistic presence of Christ” - even a part as small as a cell.

Are you aware of the Eucharist being abandoned ? They are not left to the enviroment or poured down a sink drain. All the leftover liquid host [usually is very little, sometimes we even run short] … is consumed by the Priest, and the solid host is collected and placed back in the tabernacle. In the first century, all the loaves of bread blessed by the priest were taken home by the faithful, and every portion consumed at mealtime during the subsequent week period, none thrown out or abandoned.

Nevertheless, we have the miraculous account of the solid host surviving incorruptible for many centuries, after being Consecrated. These are on display in a Church [in Italy] … where they are shown to the faithful on regular basis. Clearly, Christ’s Real Presence has been alive here for 3-4 hundred years. If Christ one day decides to leave those hosts … he would only need to allow the accidents to disappear.

 

[mdcpensive1]

I wonder what the bishops talked about concerning this topic when they named the doctrine???

I bet their arguments were a little different most of the time than what is being posted here. (not a claim !)
mdcpensive1

 

[Nita]

Originally Posted by** Nita **

I’m not sure I get your point. Your examples are where the consecrated hosts still retain the accidents of bread and wine. No Catholic here is disputing the real presence of Jesus as long as the species/accidents of bread and wine are retained. My post deals with when the species of bread and wine are corrupted - changed into accidents of some other substance.

The general teaching is that when the eucharistic species corrupt (change into something different from bread and wine), Our Lord’s Eucharistic presence ceases and they very probably becomes the substance manifested by the accidents. Eg. When hosts get mouldy, mould would be the underlying “substance”. In the case of consecrated hosts that miraculously have turned into flesh, the Eucharistic presence of Jesus would cease (since the species of bread is required for that), and the “substance” would be the same as the “accidents”. **That means in the Lanciano miracle what is present in the miraculous host is both the substance and the accidents of human heart tissue. But, it is not necessarily heart tissue belonging to Our Lord’s heart. ** Among other things, it appears to have the accidents of heart tissue in the same state as ours – that is, flesh in its perishable/mortal state, not in the state of Our Lord’s risen and glorious body. (Not that we would even know what that would look like under a microscope!!!)

I don’t know if the Church has ever issued any sort of official declaration or opinion regarding whether or not it’s Our Lord’s flesh. I’ve had no luck trying to find anything. Thus we’re probaly free to believe/think either way. But it would not be Our Lord’s Eucharistic presence where we are assured of His real, true, sacramental and substantial presence - body, blood, soul and divinity.

We certainly reverence such miracles. I was fortunate enough to visit Lanciano and view the miraculous host.