"Of Course, the Eucharist is a symbol!" and "Consecration does not transform the bread and wine for anyone except the believer"

[Suslar]

Help needed, please!

I am taking classes at (gasp!) Loyola in Chicago . . . . because I HAVE TO (discussion for another time) . . . yes, I am dealing with a ton of dissident “Catholics” and need to plow my way through drivel like the following. I could use help with sources to refute this bunk. Yes, I already have CCC par 1322-1413, but could use more. Not opinion, but facts and citations, please. THANKS!

For serious Catholics, please be sitting down when you read this junk . . . my head is still spinning that this garbage is out there – and promulgated by a so-called Catholic university!

The following excerpts are written by Ingrid H. Shafer, Prof. of Philosophy, Religion, & Interdisciplinary Studies University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, Chickasha, OK

OF COURSE, the Eucharist is a symbol! That’s what St. Augustine called it in the 4th century of the Christian era: Jesus is present in the Eucharist “per modum symboli”! The priest is not a mere magician and bread and wine don’t physically become flesh and blood (until they do it in us, after we have partaken of them in a spirit of communion and love). The problem is linguistic and has to do with the contemporary popular understanding of the term symbol. As soon as you say it is “only” a symbol you give the impression that a symbol is less than physical reality, when in fact it is more! The best way to try to recover some of the Augustinan meaning of the term symbol is to imagine how it would make you feel if someone were to come into your house and cut up a picture of someone you love, a parent, child, spouse. On the one hand, this is “only” a piece of paper with pigment, and no more valuable than junk mail you throw out. On the other hand, quite non-rationally, there is a surplus of meaning here, something intangible, a presence of the one who is portrayed and who is evoked in the image. This is the way Jesus is symbolically, sacramentally present in the consecrated bread and the wine, only much more so! And just as the same picture has special meaning for you but means nothing at all to some stranger, so the Eucharist has a special significance for believers but is simply ordinary bread and wine for those outside the Christian community.

MY EXPLANATION for the Eucharistic mystery is that it is activated in and through the love and faith of the recipient and that consequently there may indeed be a difference in which communion is experienced by the Catholic or Orthodox Christian, the Protestant Christian, and the non-Christian. Consecration does not transform the bread and wine for anyone except the believer. If a bird eats crumbs of a communion wafer or brings them to her young, God, I am sure delights in providing nourishment, but the birds are not taking communion. The notion that there is some sort of sacrilege taking place if the consecrated bread is touched by the wrong hands or eaten by the unworthy or non-Catholic seems to me the kind of superstition which is rooted in a an overly literal understanding of the sacrament as some magic object of an exclusive cult that may only be received by the properly initiated. It also sets up walls between people!
The entire article is at astro.temple.edu/~arcc/euch.htm

 

[archangel04]

Help needed, please!

I am taking classes at (gasp!) Loyola in Chicago . . . . because I HAVE TO (discussion for another time) . . . yes, I am dealing with a ton of dissident “Catholics” and need to plow my way through drivel like the following. I could use help with sources to refute this bunk. Yes, I already have CCC par 1322-1413, but could use more. Not opinion, but facts and citations, please. THANKS!

For serious Catholics, please be sitting down when you read this junk . . . my head is still spinning that this garbage is out there – and promulgated by a so-called Catholic university!

The following excerpts are written by Ingrid H. Shafer, Prof. of Philosophy, Religion, & Interdisciplinary Studies University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, Chickasha, OK

OF COURSE, the Eucharist is a symbol! That’s what St. Augustine called it in the 4th century of the Christian era: Jesus is present in the Eucharist “per modum symboli”! The priest is not a mere magician and bread and wine don’t physically become flesh and blood (until they do it in us, after we have partaken of them in a spirit of communion and love). The problem is linguistic and has to do with the contemporary popular understanding of the term symbol. As soon as you say it is “only” a symbol you give the impression that a symbol is less than physical reality, when in fact it is more! The best way to try to recover some of the Augustinan meaning of the term symbol is to imagine how it would make you feel if someone were to come into your house and cut up a picture of someone you love, a parent, child, spouse. On the one hand, this is “only” a piece of paper with pigment, and no more valuable than junk mail you throw out. On the other hand, quite non-rationally, there is a surplus of meaning here, something intangible, a presence of the one who is portrayed and who is evoked in the image. This is the way Jesus is symbolically, sacramentally present in the consecrated bread and the wine, only much more so! And just as the same picture has special meaning for you but means nothing at all to some stranger, so the Eucharist has a special significance for believers but is simply ordinary bread and wine for those outside the Christian community.

MY EXPLANATION for the Eucharistic mystery is that it is activated in and through the love and faith of the recipient and that consequently there may indeed be a difference in which communion is experienced by the Catholic or Orthodox Christian, the Protestant Christian, and the non-Christian. Consecration does not transform the bread and wine for anyone except the believer. If a bird eats crumbs of a communion wafer or brings them to her young, God, I am sure delights in providing nourishment, but the birds are not taking communion. The notion that there is some sort of sacrilege taking place if the consecrated bread is touched by the wrong hands or eaten by the unworthy or non-Catholic seems to me the kind of superstition which is rooted in a an overly literal understanding of the sacrament as some magic object of an exclusive cult that may only be received by the properly initiated. It also sets up walls between people!
The entire article is at astro.temple.edu/~arcc/euch.htm

I am a student there as well. I know exactly what you are dealing with. When the consecration happens, the Eucharist is not Body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ only the accidents of bread and wine remain. To non-believers the consecration makes no difference, for them it just that bread and wine, but the reality is that the bread and wine are now consecrated regardless with what anyone says. PM and we can chat more about Loyola

 

[SteveGC]

Although I know you’re primarily looking for useful citations and dogmatic references, my initial thought right out of the box would be to ask them if Rome agrees with them.

If they say yes, you’ve got them.

If they evade, you’ve got them.

If they say no, then the Devil’s got them.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Help needed, please!

I am taking classes at (gasp!) Loyola in Chicago . . . . because I HAVE TO (discussion for another time) . . . yes, I am dealing with a ton of dissident “Catholics” and need to plow my way through drivel like the following. I could use help with sources to refute this bunk. Yes, I already have CCC par 1322-1413, but could use more. Not opinion, but facts and citations, please. THANKS!

For serious Catholics, please be sitting down when you read this junk . . . my head is still spinning that this garbage is out there – and promulgated by a so-called Catholic university!

The following excerpts are written by Ingrid H. Shafer, Prof. of Philosophy, Religion, & Interdisciplinary Studies University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, Chickasha, OK

OF COURSE, the Eucharist is a symbol! That’s what St. Augustine called it in the 4th century of the Christian era: Jesus is present in the Eucharist “per modum symboli”! The priest is not a mere magician and bread and wine don’t physically become flesh and blood (until they do it in us, after we have partaken of them in a spirit of communion and love). The problem is linguistic and has to do with the contemporary popular understanding of the term symbol. As soon as you say it is “only” a symbol you give the impression that a symbol is less than physical reality, when in fact it is more! The best way to try to recover some of the Augustinan meaning of the term symbol is to imagine how it would make you feel if someone were to come into your house and cut up a picture of someone you love, a parent, child, spouse. On the one hand, this is “only” a piece of paper with pigment, and no more valuable than junk mail you throw out. On the other hand, quite non-rationally, there is a surplus of meaning here, something intangible, a presence of the one who is portrayed and who is evoked in the image. This is the way Jesus is symbolically, sacramentally present in the consecrated bread and the wine, only much more so! And just as the same picture has special meaning for you but means nothing at all to some stranger, so the Eucharist has a special significance for believers but is simply ordinary bread and wine for those outside the Christian community.

MY EXPLANATION for the Eucharistic mystery is that it is activated in and through the love and faith of the recipient and that consequently there may indeed be a difference in which communion is experienced by the Catholic or Orthodox Christian, the Protestant Christian, and the non-Christian. Consecration does not transform the bread and wine for anyone except the believer. If a bird eats crumbs of a communion wafer or brings them to her young, God, I am sure delights in providing nourishment, but the birds are not taking communion. The notion that there is some sort of sacrilege taking place if the consecrated bread is touched by the wrong hands or eaten by the unworthy or non-Catholic seems to me the kind of superstition which is rooted in a an overly literal understanding of the sacrament as some magic object of an exclusive cult that may only be received by the properly initiated. It also sets up walls between people!
The entire article is at astro.temple.edu/~arcc/euch.htm

Wrong.Where is the deal?
Look:

As soon as you say it is “only” a symbol you give the impression that a symbol is less than physical reality, when in fact it is more!

Now, the fellow starts reasoning with the image of the photo. Now, how can a photo be MORE than the presence of the person. How come that me kissing and hugging the picture of mu wife be MORE than kissing her and hugging herself?

You do not need to read the rest of the article.

Moreover, Jesus Christ would not need St. Augustin. He knew the word symbol, He was not stupid. So, if He wanted to say that they were SYMBOLS, He would have said the word.

I love St. Augustin, but I do not have patience to investigate. I am sure St. Augustin did not say what the fella said that St. Augustin said.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Although I know you’re primarily looking for useful citations and dogmatic references, my initial thought right out of the box would be to ask them if Rome agrees with them.

If they say yes, you’ve got them.

If they evade, you’ve got them.

If they say no, then the Devil’s got them.

I doubt the point of the article was to agree with the Holy See. This professor likely has no interest in agreeing with Church teaching.

I think it’s important to remember that Ingrid H. Shafer is notorious for criticizing the Catholic Church for anything she can lay her hands on. It is unsurprising that she would also wish to dismiss the doctrine of the Real Presence. Her stance is not new. Protestants have long held to this flawed belief that Communion is merely ‘symbolic’ (as though God’s grace was ‘symbolic’!). Perhaps that is the very reason why Loyola brought her in - to obtain a devil’s advocate, so that their students can train their intellectual capacities against half-truths and lies.

There are many theologians and doctors of the Church who have repeatedly affirmed the Real Presence in no uncertain terms. However, I see that Shafer’s arguments chooses to pick a few words out of poor St. Augustine’s mouth and warp them to fit a Protestant view of the Eucharist. I have not read for myself the works of St. Augustine, but I believe her arugments revolve around her misinterpretation and the decontextualization of his writings. Shafer chooses only to take a few words out of poor St. Augustine’s mouth and warp them to fit a Protestant view of the Eucharist. As such, this may help answer some of your questions:

St. Augustine’s Real Faith in the Real Presence

In parting, if there is any ‘symbolism’, it is not bread symbolizing Christ, but Christ symbolizing the bread of life.

 

[Dorothy]

You know…just because learned scholars are describing this in a different way than you have been previously taught, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s drivel, bunk, or junk. Instead of using all your energy to be antagonistic, it makes sense to listen to other people’s point of view and opinions.

It makes sense to correct them in love.

 

[Phemie]

I think this professor misunderstands the meaning of symbol as used by Augustine. This was explained to us in a class on liturgy, about a decade ago. As I recall, the professor answered the question 'Is the Eucharist a symbol?" with

“It depends whether you’re from X school of philosopy for whom “symbol” IS the thing or from the Y school of philosophy for whom “symbol” only REPRESENTS the thing/person. X school would say yes, it is a symbol and Y school would say ‘no, it is not only a symbol’.”

To be perfectly truthful, I think X & Y were Aristotle and Socrates but I can’t really recall. In any case he was making the point that in patristic writings you had to know which school the writer was following to properly understand the use of the word ‘symbol’ in the writings.

 

[Dannel11]

Take a look at this recent thread:

“Difficulty with transubstantiation”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=639718

 

[tee_eff_em]

This sentence is almost exactly right:

Consecration does not transform the bread and wine for anyone except the believer.

All one needs do is excise the last three words, -]except the believer/-], and it is fully in line with Catholic teaching.

(Eucharistic miracles aside) The Church does not teach that consecration *transforms *anything. The bread and wine explicitly maintain their accidents (or forms). Consecration *transubstaniates *them (ie changes their substances).

tee

 

[Tigg]

You know…just because learned scholars are describing this in a different way than you have been previously taught, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s drivel, bunk, or junk. Instead of using all your energy to be antagonistic, it makes sense to listen to other people’s point of view and opinions.

'Fraid NOT! Anything surrounding the Eucharist is dogma of the Catholic Church and we may not dissent from the teaching.

 

[Tigg]

This sentence is almost exactly right:

All one needs do is excise the last three words, -]except the believer/-], and it is fully in line with Catholic teaching.

(Eucharistic miracles aside) The Church does not teach that consecration transforms anything. The bread and wine explicitly maintain their accidents (or forms). Consecration transubstaniates them (ie changes their substances).

tee

This is correct altho you misspelled transubstantiate…or dissecting the word, “trans” crossing over, beyond, or changing thoroughly = change in substance. But we won’t convince the atheists on this board, nor the Catholics who have lost their belief in the Real Presence.

 

[azerty]

How ignorant, how can this so called professor think that the ancients were structuralists ?
For the ancient who suscribed to platonician philosophy a symbol is something realist and “linked” to its archetype. There is absolutely nothing conventional in a sacred symbol like this lousy prof think.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think you should just keep your nose out of it. Her superiors obviously don’t care at all or she wouldn’t be working there. When you get your massive degrees, then you can go humiliate her academically. Until then, keep your nose clean, go to mass, and immerse yourself in real Catholic doctrine.

 

[Suslar]

I doubt the point of the article was to agree with the Holy See. This professor likely has no interest in agreeing with Church teaching.

I think it’s important to remember that Ingrid H. Shafer is notorious for criticizing the Catholic Church for anything she can lay her hands on. It is unsurprising that she would also wish to dismiss the doctrine of the Real Presence. Her stance is not new. Protestants have long held to this flawed belief that Communion is merely ‘symbolic’ (as though God’s grace was ‘symbolic’!). Perhaps that is the very reason why Loyola brought her in - to obtain a devil’s advocate, so that their students can train their intellectual capacities against half-truths and lies.

There are many theologians and doctors of the Church who have repeatedly affirmed the Real Presence in no uncertain terms. However, I see that Shafer’s arguments chooses to pick a few words out of poor St. Augustine’s mouth and warp them to fit a Protestant view of the Eucharist. I have not read for myself the works of St. Augustine, but I believe her arugments revolve around her misinterpretation and the decontextualization of his writings. Shafer chooses only to take a few words out of poor St. Augustine’s mouth and warp them to fit a Protestant view of the Eucharist. As such, this may help answer some of your questions:

St. Augustine’s Real Faith in the Real Presence

In parting, if there is any ‘symbolism’, it is not bread symbolizing Christ, but Christ symbolizing the bread of life.

THANK YOU! Your response and link help tremendously!!

 

[Suslar]

You know…just because learned scholars are describing this in a different way than you have been previously taught, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s drivel, bunk, or junk. Instead of using all your energy to be antagonistic, it makes sense to listen to other people’s point of view and opinions.

Thank you for your suggestion. Obviously, I AM attempting to read, understand and evaluate other people’s points of view or I would not be reading her work - perhaps you missed that point? But, I do not know who Shafer is and therefore could not rightfully call her a “learned scholar.” While I am not a “learnde scholar” I am a faithfully practicing Catholic who will defend Jesus Christ with my own life. So, when someone makes false statements about Him, it does get me concerned – especially when those untruths or half-truths are being shared with others who are less discerning and accept all they hear at face value without question. Again, thank you for yur (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Suslar]

It makes sense to correct them in love.

Thanks, Dorothy. I totally agree.
In this case, after reading this paper by Shafer, my concern is more for my classmates who accept at face value what is benig said and then in turn become Pastoral Associates in parishes and continue to pass on things that may or may not be true.

 

[Suslar]

I think this professor misunderstands the meaning of symbol as used by Augustine. This was explained to us in a class on liturgy, about a decade ago. As I recall, the professor answered the question 'Is the Eucharist a symbol?" with

“It depends whether you’re from X school of philosopy for whom “symbol” IS the thing or from the Y school of philosophy for whom “symbol” only REPRESENTS the thing/person. X school would say yes, it is a symbol and Y school would say ‘no, it is not only a symbol’.”

To be perfectly truthful, I think X & Y were Aristotle and Socrates but I can’t really recall. In any case he was making the point that in patristic writings you had to know which school the writer was following to properly understand the use of the word ‘symbol’ in the writings.

Thanks for the great info! I’m researching it now. That will reaqlly help me!

 

[Suslar]

I think you should just keep your nose out of it. Her superiors obviously don’t care at all or she wouldn’t be working there. When you get your massive degrees, then you can go humiliate her academically. Until then, keep your nose clean, go to mass, and immerse yourself in real Catholic doctrine.

That’s a funny response! How can I “keep my nose out of it” when it’s part of a class at the university? Shafer is not my instructor - but her work is required reading. I have no intention of “humiliating her academically” or any other way. I just believe heresy and untruths need to be stopped - “nipped in the bud” - when it presents itself as it so often does in academia. I’m in a class with other who are training to be Lay Ecclesial Ministers in the Church - people who will be DRE’s and Pastoral Associates. I think we deserve to hear solid Catholic teaching instead of a steady stream of work from dissidents.

As for me, I do attend daily Mass. I pray for God’s grace to withstand the liberal assault on Catholic Doctrine and for the wisdom to learn to defend The Church with integrity, charity and zeal. Will you please pray for me too?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That’s a funny response! How can I “keep my nose out of it” when it’s part of a class at the university? Shafer is not my instructor - but her work is required reading. I have no intention of “humiliating her academically” or any other way. I just believe heresy and untruths need to be stopped - “nipped in the bud” - when it presents itself as it so often does in academia. I’m in a class with other who are training to be Lay Ecclesial Ministers in the Church - people who will be DRE’s and Pastoral Associates. I think we deserve to hear solid Catholic teaching instead of a steady stream of work from dissidents.

As for me, I do attend daily Mass. I pray for God’s grace to withstand the liberal assault on Catholic Doctrine and for the wisdom to learn to defend The Church with integrity, charity and zeal. Will you please pray for me too?

You must learn to choose your battles.

Is this one you can conceivably win? Will you sway the professor to your line (and the Church’s) of thinking? Or could it cause the professor to have issues with you and then possibly hurt your grade?

As an undergraduate student, or even a graduate student, you do not know enough and have no credentials to really argue many issues.

In one of my graduate philosophy classes the first night of class the professor told us that his class is a lecture class and not a seminar class. We are to feel free to ask any questions but if the answers are in the required readings or in the notes he supplies he will not answer and it will show us up as not having done the readings. We go through the notes he supplies in class but we are to be at least 7-10 pages a head of where he finishes for the night.

The class room is hardly ever the appropriate place to challenge anyone, especially the professor and while you may only be thinking of challenging an author of a required reading you must remember that the professor chose what you are reading for a reason, usually it is because they agree with it.

Though I did have one class where at the beginning the professor told us that she did not agree with one of the authors she had chosen for us to read but she wanted us to read it to get both sides of the arguments that would be discussed in class, this was a Medical Bio-ethics class.

 

[Phemie]

Thanks for the great info! I’m researching it now. That will reaqlly help me!

See Azerty’s post #13. It was Platonician vs Aristotelian philosophy.