Orthodox Christians and the Real Presence:

[Gabriel_of_12]

I think we are following Gabriel down one of those awkward Rabbit Holes…

Best to let this go.

M.

I agree with you; If it’s too hot in the kitchen then better to stay out of the kitchen.

Thats the problem Orthodoxy has with some Catholics who dare not give witness of our Catholic faith to their misunderstandings.

If Orthodoxy is going to misinterpret transubstantiation of the Eucharist as being a philisophical concept holding to the properties of physics which according to some Orthodox transubstantiation tries to define a mystery of the Eucharist. Needs to be adddressed or else their misunderstandings will poison others.

The Sacraments of the Catholic Church contain the Word of God which according to Hebrews 4:12 Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart. Is what is being discussed here.

I believe our Orthodox poster truly understands our deep discussion and the differences being proposed and highlighted.

Which is the transubstantial change of bread and wine and what the accidents of bread and wine contain.

If you can add to this subject matter your imput is greatly appreciated so as to reach an understanding.

I usually don’t address insults here; But please do not address my faith here which I expressed from posts as leading someone down a rabbit hole, if the subject matter being discussed is too deep for you to comprehend, you are welcome to ask or intervene at any time. IF you have a question to my posts ask me about them, do not conclude them as something other by addressing another poster about them “please”.

Furthermore my comments reveal that transubstantiation never attempts to explain or define the mystery of the Eucharist but only a substantial change occured. And that my Catholic faith in the Eucharist is never held by a philisophical concept, nor held by physics as Orthodox falsely claims.

Peace be with you

 

[Elijahmaria]

I agree with you; If it’s too hot in the kitchen then better to stay out of the kitchen.

Thats the problem Orthodoxy has with some Catholics who dare not give witness of our Catholic faith to their misunderstandings.

Somebody from your side of the kitchen needs to get hold of you and do some serious catechesis…actually they need to explain the meaning of substance and accident to you. You don’t get it at all.

Perhaps some brave Catholic soul will take on some of your more outlandish assertions.

I don’t care to deal with your lip or I would do it.

 

[dcointin]

"Again we offer unto thee this reasonable and unbloody service, and beseech thee and pray thee and supplicate thee; send down the Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here spread forth.

And make this bread the precious Body of thy Christ; And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ. Changing them by thy Holy Spirit; Amen, Amen, Amen" [bold mine]

The Divine Liturgy

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Somebody from your side of the kitchen needs to get hold of you and do some serious catechesis…actually they need to explain the meaning of substance and accident to you. You don’t get it at all.

Perhaps some brave Catholic soul will take on some of your more outlandish assertions.

I don’t care to deal with your lip or I would do it.

I won’t engage you with idle talk. Your disposition defeats the whole purpose of these forums and discussions to exchange each ones beliefs and understandings. You are at liberty to engage in such discussions at any time here.

Running away from truth is not the answer.

I have not revealed here nothing contrary or contradicting to the Catholic Teaching of transubstantiation of change to substance of bread and wine and the accidents remaining.

You may be imagining things, misinterpreting or just now learning the Truth of the Catholic Church’s teaching of transubstantiation for what it is and not what you or I think it is.

Peace be with you

 

[Marybeloved]

@Gabriel

I’m not sure completely but I think what you mean is that absolutely nothing of the bread and wine remain except to our senses. So that in reality, probably the angels may look and perceive only Christ and no accidental properties of bread and wine at all- But we who are sensual beings (if I can put it that way) are helped by God’s miracle to sense bread and wine. So that in reality no accidents exist but only to our senses here?

I’m not sure, again, but I think this is like the Energies/Essence distinction. Some talk of an actual distinction in God himself, while others only about what we (humans) perceive and don’t perceive in God. It seems you’re saying that no accidents remain in actuality but only to our own perceptions/senses? I suppose my confusion is that I do think that what you’re saying is exactly what most believers in the real presence say as well- whichever expressions they use . In reality, nothing of bread and wine remain- They are changed entirely- I think that’s what everyone is saying here. Yet to our senses- nothing has changed at all, before and after all the prayers:shrug: Our eyes, noses, tongues still perceive bread and wine, but our faith perceives ONLY Christ our Savior ALONE.

That’s my own perception of this confusion of the accidents and substance.

 

[Elijahmaria]

@Gabriel

I’m not sure completely but I think what you mean is that absolutely nothing of the bread and wine remain except to our senses. So that in reality, probably the angels may look and perceive only Christ and no accidental properties of bread and wine at all- But we who are sensual beings (if I can put it that way) are helped by God’s miracle to sense bread and wine. So that in reality no accidents exist but only to our senses here?

I’m not sure, again, but I think this is like the Energies/Essence distinction. Some talk of an actual distinction in God himself, while others only about what we (humans) perceive and don’t perceive in God. It seems you’re saying that no accidents remain in actuality but only to our own perceptions/senses? I suppose my confusion is that I do think that what you’re saying is exactly what most believers in the real presence say as well- whichever expressions they use . In reality, nothing of bread and wine remain- They are changed entirely- I think that’s what everyone is saying here. Yet to our senses- nothing has changed at all, before and after all the prayers:shrug: Our eyes, noses, tongues still perceive bread and wine, but our faith perceives ONLY Christ our Savior ALONE.

That’s my own perception of this confusion of the accidents and substance.

You need to be exceptionally careful in your expressions not to establish a real soul\intellect\body dualism or partition. It does not exist in reality.

Part of the reason that I won’t engage Gabriel is his attitude. It is also because he errs in over-explaining.

M.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

@Gabriel

I’m not sure completely but I think what you mean is that absolutely nothing of the bread and wine remain except to our senses. So that in reality, probably the angels may look and perceive only Christ and no accidental properties of bread and wine at all- But we who are sensual beings (if I can put it that way) are helped by God’s miracle to sense bread and wine. So that in reality no accidents exist but only to our senses here?

I’m not sure, again, but I think this is like the Energies/Essence distinction. Some talk of an actual distinction in God himself, while others only about what we (humans) perceive and don’t perceive in God. It seems you’re saying that no accidents remain in actuality but only to our own perceptions/senses? I suppose my confusion is that I do think that what you’re saying is exactly what most believers in the real presence say as well- whichever expressions they use . In reality, nothing of bread and wine remain- They are changed entirely- I think that’s what everyone is saying here. Yet to our senses- nothing has changed at all, before and after all the prayers:shrug: Our eyes, noses, tongues still perceive bread and wine, but our faith perceives ONLY Christ our Savior ALONE.

That’s my own perception of this confusion of the accidents and substance.

That is a correct analysis that I hoped to reach here.

I have been given the benefit of the doubt to Cavaradossi to define his/her position of the accidents that remain.

Cavaradossi insists that the accidents of bread and wine exists as bread and wine from the substance of bread and wine, thereby does not relate to a change of the substance.
This application deals with the physics of the transubstantiation not the faith pertaining to transubstantiation of a change taken place.

My point is as you explained, reveals the accidents of bread and wine remaining as these bread and wine only to our senses from transubstantiation. While it is our Catholic faith which confirms that the whole substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Cavaradossi using the formula of transubstantiation, believes the accidents are not appearing to be bread and wine as the Catholic Church teaches, but the accidents are truly bread and wine according to the physics of transubstantiation. This is not Catholic teaching. Because the accidents “appear” to be bread and wine to our senses.

The reason of my explanation is to remove the Orthodox false notion that the Catholic Church is applying a philisophical concept and or scientific physics to define the Eucharist. This is not so, because the accidents of bread and wine remain only to our senses in this transubstantial change, while the whole substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body, blood of Jesus Christ.

The other point we finally moved away from was that transubstantiation only reveals a change of the substance of bread and wine. Transubstantiation never has the power nor determines what a substance has transubstantiated into. The Catholic faith picks up here where transubstantiation leaves off, revealing a whole and substantial change of the bread and wine into the body, blood of Jesus Christ, leaving only the accidents of bread and wine to our senses, but they are truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ as the CCC and Trent defines the transubstantial change.

If a Catholic accepts the position of bread and wine remaining as of the substance as bread and wine permanently in the accidents as Cavaradossi explains, transubstantiation never takes place in the Eucharist.

Not even by the physics of transubstantiation take place according to Cavaradossi’s position of the Eucharist. Because the physical form of the bread and wine have not been destroyed in order for Cavaradossi’s physical transubstantiation to take place, leaving the accidents of bread and wine permanently that change into another physical form from Cavaradossi scientific transubstantiation of physics.

The Catholic Church reveals a substantial change to the substance of bread and wine, by transubstantiation leaving the accidents of bread “by appearance” as bread and wine to our senses, while our Catholic faith believes that by this trransubstantial change these “species” are truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Iam sorry that such digression of this subject has taken place. But clarity is needed here to remove all doubt of the Real presence of Jesus Christ in His Eucharist.

We have not covered the Spirit and Word of God which acts sacramentally through the transubstantial change. I believe the position between the “Real Spirit” and the flesh that gets revealed in transubstantiation from John 6:63 is where ElijahMaria missed the whole discussion.

The Spirit and the Flesh from transubstantiation has not been addressed here fully, but if anyone wishes time permitting I would be happy to oblige how our Catholic faith exceeds meta-ousis and transubstantiation.

Thanks for your clarification
peace be with you

 

[Cavaradossi]

That is a correct analysis that I hoped to reach here.

I have been given the benefit of the doubt to Cavaradossi to define his/her position of the accidents that remain.

** Cavaradossi insists that the accidents of bread and wine exists as bread and wine from the substance of bread and wine, thereby does not relate to a change of the substance.**
This application deals with the physics of the transubstantiation not the faith pertaining to transubstantiation of a change taken place.

My point is as you explained, reveals the accidents of bread and wine remaining as these bread and wine only to our senses from transubstantiation. While it is our Catholic faith which confirms that the whole substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Cavaradossi using the formula of transubstantiation, believes the accidents are not appearing to be bread and wine as the Catholic Church teaches, but the accidents are truly bread and wine according to the physics of transubstantiation. This is not Catholic teaching. Because the accidents “appear” to be bread and wine to our senses.

The reason of my explanation is to remove the Orthodox false notion that the Catholic Church is applying a philisophical concept and or scientific physics to define the Eucharist. This is not so, because the accidents of bread and wine remain only to our senses in this transubstantial change, while the whole substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body, blood of Jesus Christ.

The other point we finally moved away from was that transubstantiation only reveals a change of the substance of bread and wine. Transubstantiation never has the power nor determines what a substance has transubstantiated into. The Catholic faith picks up here where transubstantiation leaves off, revealing a whole and substantial change of the bread and wine into the body, blood of Jesus Christ, leaving only the accidents of bread and wine to our senses, but they are truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ as the CCC and Trent defines the transubstantial change.

**If a Catholic accepts the position of bread and wine remaining as of the substance as bread and wine permanently in the accidents as Cavaradossi explains, transubstantiation never takes place in the Eucharist. **

Not even by the physics of transubstantiation take place according to Cavaradossi’s position of the Eucharist. Because the physical form of the bread and wine have not been destroyed in order for Cavaradossi’s physical transubstantiation to take place, leaving the accidents of bread and wine permanently that change into another physical form from Cavaradossi scientific transubstantiation of physics.

The Catholic Church reveals a substantial change to the substance of bread and wine, by transubstantiation leaving the accidents of bread “by appearance” as bread and wine to our senses, while our Catholic faith believes that by this trransubstantial change these “species” are truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Iam sorry that such digression of this subject has taken place. But clarity is needed here to remove all doubt of the Real presence of Jesus Christ in His Eucharist.

We have not covered the Spirit and Word of God which acts sacramentally through the transubstantial change. I believe the position between the “Real Spirit” and the flesh that gets revealed in transubstantiation from John 6:63 is where ElijahMaria missed the whole discussion.

The Spirit and the Flesh from transubstantiation has not been addressed here fully, but if anyone wishes time permitting I would be happy to oblige how our Catholic faith exceeds meta-ousis and transubstantiation.

Thanks for your clarification
peace be with you

Wow, I didn’t argue for any of those things. This is precisely why I dislike philosophical language, because not everybody understands it correctly. I don’t intend to be mean-spirited or anything by saying this, but when three separate posters are telling you that they find your position to be incredibly confusing, and two have told you that you might not be understanding substance and accidents correctly, you might want to consider that what they are saying might have some merit.

 

[Elijahmaria]

Wow, I didn’t argue for any of those things. This is precisely why I dislike philosophical language, because not everybody understands it correctly. I don’t intend to be mean-spirited or anything by saying this, but when three separate posters are telling you that they find your position to be incredibly confusing, and two have told you that you might not be understanding substance and accidents correctly, you might want to consider that what they are saying might have some merit.

Much easier to embrace a facile dualism.

M.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Wow, I didn’t argue for any of those things. This is precisely why I dislike philosophical language, because not everybody understands it correctly. I don’t intend to be mean-spirited or anything by saying this, but when three separate posters are telling you that they find your position to be incredibly confusing, and two have told you that you might not be understanding substance and accidents correctly, you might want to consider that what they are saying might have some merit.

Sorry your posts speak for themselves. I believe the difficulty that is being addressed here deals with the interpretation of “faith” is being expressed when one is forcing physics, or philosophical thought over what “faith” is being expressed here. From this point of view it is easy to see the result of confusion.

I purposely refused to introduce other words of definition other than what the Church uses to define this exchange so as not to confuse the Catholic “thought” being expressed from the “change of substance and accidents” resulting in faith.

Your result of substance and accidents resulting from transubstantiation do not express the Catholic faith found from the change in transubstantiation in the Eucharist. So far you have only introduced a philosophical concept to a scientific result of physics defined from transubstantiation which does not exist in the Eucharist because the bread and wine are never physically destroyed to result in a substance change resulting from the same accidents.

Yet you decieve yourself into believing this physical transubstantiation occurs, when it is never a change “caused” by nature itself. It is here where you falsely have nature applying the transubtantial change to the bread and wine, leaving accidents of bread and wine behind from the substance of bread and wine, when it is a divine power which is the cause and effect of the transubstantial change, leaving the appearance of bread and wine (“from their accidents”) to our senses but are truly the body, blood of Jesus Christ present.

When you apply your view of “accidents” remaining no matter how you see the species physically remaining, your view has the bread and wine co-existing with the body, blood of Jesus, which is non other than consubstantiation. My Catholic faith does not hold your position from your physics.

I have responded to my critics here of my position, and still await an educated and reasonable reply to the subject. Insults and negativity to my character without rebuttle only reveals dead end from my opposition.

I am glad for this discussion because it reveals our Catholic faith mystically in another level of mystism that probably gets missed by Joe pew Catholic.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Much easier to embrace a facile dualism.

M.

What is revealed here from the juxtaposition in the Orthodox false assumptions of the Catholic definition from transubstantiation. Reveals that the Orthodox who make the false accusation of transubstantiation find that their position they argue from is proven false about Catholicism in transubstantiation.

I can see this pill being very hard for those to swallow who falsify our Catholic faith from transubstantiation in the Eucharist, to mean something other than what the Catholic Church teaches and reveals from transubstantiation.

Peace be with you

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think you miss the whole point of the discussion and the decree introduced here. My position is not what I think. My position is addressing those Orthodox posters and others who reject transubstantiation as trying to define the mystery of the Change from their imaginations that misunderstands the meaning of transubstantiation.

Like I said, its not that they are rejecting transubstantiation but that philosophical understanding of the process has never been taught in the East. Its just not the philosophy used by Eastern theologian to explain and understand the faith. Its not rejected because its wrong, its just a way of thinking that is not used in the East and therefore would be hard to understand for those who have lived thinking the way the East thinks.

I believe if one does not accept transubstantiation need not reject or refute its definition as describing that a change has occured. Anything apart from this reality of transubstantiation comes from ones imagination with impiety.

To tell you the truth, even the time I was Roman Catholic (which is still about 95% of my life) it took a while to understand what transubstantiation is. Remember that Eastern Christians are very comfortable with accepting many things as a mystery, that God is beyond our comprehension and that we know only what is revealed. To force Eastern Christians to adopt a philosophical way of thinking that is foreign to them is not a good idea. I think we should just respect how each side has learned the faith for the last 2000 years.

I believe if one incorrectily applies a philosophical concept change to the Bread and the wine is another incorrect definition of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation reveals a real and substancial change to a substance while the accidents remain.

I think its worse to apply a philosophical concept that is totally foreign to the entire theology. Like I said, transubstantiation is borne out of Aristotle’s philosophy, which really isn’t used in the East as much. Also the fact that things like transubstantiation is seen in the East as an unnecessary burden to the faith. I mean, what more do we need to know that the bread and wine has been changed to the body and blood of Christ? The East has always allowed and is totally comfortable with letting people make an explanation of their own, as long as the doctrine is not changed. Thats just the way it is.

This is not a philosophical concept when applied to the Eucharist. This is where the imagination leaves the reality of those who try and redifine the change as philosophically explaining how the change occurs which is a false presumption. To think of it as a philosophical concept attacks the reality of the change of substance by our Catholic faith.

It is a philosophical concept. Accidents and substance is.

Those who reject transubstantiation do so under a false pretense to define something other than what transubstantiation reveals a change of substance.

Transubstantiation is not part of the Deposit of Faith. To claim it as if its a God-given doctrine is false. Transubstantiation is just a scholastic approach in an effort to explain how the bread and wine is changed. It doesn’t explain the change itself.

The East used “change of being” which I cannot hold to, because I could never accept the bread as a being to change into another. The West uses “change of substance” = transubstantiation, which describes the change of the substance of bread and wine into the body, blood of Jesus Christ.

If you cannot accept it, then leave it as that. To condemn those who hold a valid faith based on your own personal understanding is to put yourself in an authoritative level that you do not possess. The faith of the East is up to its bishops to decide what is acceptable or not, it is not up to you. Its is also up to the Pope, for Eastern Catholics, whether he can accept this and by extension establish communion, or deem it heretical and break communion which would made those Churches heretic and schismatic. I’m sorry that you cannot hold to it, but don’t force other people to hold on to what is valid just because you personally cannot accept it.

Some Eastern Church’s used trans-mutation, transformation which is easily defeated by secularism and science, because neither of these definitions used in the Eastern Church’s never reveal an outer change as they defiine. Transubstantiation removes all doubt here from all the different “changes” the Eastern Church’s tried to use to define a “substantial” change to the bread and wine.

If transubstantiation removes all doubt, tell my why a significant number of Roman Catholics today do not believe in the Real Presence?

I never doubt anyone’s faith in the Real Presence. I am only addressing those who refute my Catholic understanding of the Real Presence from a substantial change of the species of bread and wine, into the body and blood of Jesus Christ with an incorrect understanding and imagining something other than what transubstantiation defines.

I don’t think they are refuting your understanding, they are refuting that you are forcing your understanding on them. There are differences with how East and West perceive the faith. Our bishops have agreed that they do not oppose each other. Blessed Pope John Paul II said that between East and West, one tradition sometimes expresses the truth much better than the other. Perhaps transubstantiation is a better way of explaining the change. But that doesn’t mean the tradition of the East is wrong and wiped out in favor of it. Better doesn’t mean the other is wrong, it doesn’t mean its the only way.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Sorry your posts speak for themselves. I believe the difficulty that is being addressed here deals with the interpretation of “faith” is being expressed when one is forcing physics, or philosophical thought over what “faith” is being expressed here. From this point of view it is easy to see the result of confusion.

I purposely refused to introduce other words of definition other than what the Church uses to define this exchange so as not to confuse the Catholic “thought” being expressed from the “change of substance and accidents” resulting in faith.

Your result of substance and accidents resulting from transubstantiation do not express the Catholic faith found from the change in transubstantiation in the Eucharist. So far you have only introduced a philosophical concept to a scientific result of physics defined from transubstantiation which does not exist in the Eucharist because the bread and wine are never physically destroyed to result in a substance change resulting from the same accidents.

Yet you decieve yourself into believing this physical transubstantiation occurs, when it is never a change “caused” by nature itself. It is here where you falsely have nature applying the transubtantial change to the bread and wine, leaving accidents of bread and wine behind from the substance of bread and wine, when it is a divine power which is the cause and effect of the transubstantial change, leaving the appearance of bread and wine (“from their accidents”) to our senses but are truly the body, blood of Jesus Christ present.

That is untrue. I never claimed these things.

When you apply your view of “accidents” remaining no matter how you see the species physically remaining, your view has the bread and wine co-existing with the body, blood of Jesus, which is non other than consubstantiation. My Catholic faith does not hold your position from your physics.

This is also untrue. I have not supported consubstantiation in this thread. In fact, I posted to the contrary at the beginning of the thread, stating that the epiclesis from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is inconsistent with consubstantiation.

I have responded to my critics here of my position, and still await an educated and reasonable reply to the subject. Insults and negativity to my character without rebuttle only reveals dead end from my opposition.

Sadly, you have dismissed them instead of considering that they might be correct. You have made several incredibly erroneous statements in the past 20 posts or so which directly contradict the teaching of your Church on this matter. For example:

I am no Greek scholar, but Meta-ousis is describing a “change of being” that would include the outer substance to change its whole being into a “ousis” person, which is not revealed in the confected species.

Because Meta-ousis is describing a “living being” which is correct as far as the Real Presence is concerned. But Meta-ousis for me falls short of defining or including the bread and wine as to be part of the “being”. If Greek philosophy describes “being” as substance then we have no disagreement. Yet “ousis” is describing a change which includes a “living being”, when bread and wine are not living beings, unless Greek philosophy translates bread and wine as containing “ousis” to mean substance.
Under your definition of “being” I agree with you. When I read “ousis” it translates a real living being to me and does not include the “substance” or your definition of being as bread and wine, this is where I think it falls short for me, because it is only describing “a change into a living being” when applied to the Eucharist.

Firstly, it’s ousia, not ousis, and it’s metousiosis, not meta-ousis; secondly, ousia is precisely what the Latins translated as substance. To Aristotle, ousia was not a person or the “outer substance” of something, it was simply a thing in itself, a property bearer in which accidents would inhere. It is the feminine present participle of the Greek verb einai (to be), which appropriately shows its relation to the being of an object, in that the ousia of something reflects for lack of a better term what it truly is. Metousiosis in the context of the Eucharist means transubstantiation, as it is simply a translation of the scholastic term transubstantiation into Greek.

Here, you post an erroneous statement saying that the change in the Eucharist does not involve the accidents of the bread and wine remaining in reality, but only in an illusory fashion to the senses, and then you humorously, in the same post, quote two sentences from a Catholic textbook which refutes your statement:

This is never transubstantiation. Because the accidents of bread and wine remain “ONLY” to our senses but the whole substance of bread and wine have transubstantiated into the body, blood of Jesus Christ…

Here; “After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power” (abridge Catholic definition John A. Hardon, S.J pg 439)

It should be clear how your statement that the accidents are merely illusory contradicts the teaching put forth by the book you quoted which states that the accidents, “are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Here, you state that the Catholic Church teaches that the accidents change, which is entirely contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, as the Catholic Church teaches that transpeciation is limited to Eucharistic Miracles:

The Catholic Church does reveal a substantial change and an accidental change by transubstantiation. By transubstantiation the accidents of bread and wine remain these only to our senses, although the “accidents” of bread and wine remain these to our senses, they are no longer bread and wine, they are the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church confirms that the substance of bread and wine have taken on a “substantial change” by transubstantiation because the “accidents” of bread and wine remain only to our senses, but truly are the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

In the same post, you also contend that the accidents remaining would be consubstantiation, which is a grave error, because the Catholic Church teaches that transubstantiation does in fact involve the accidents remaining without a subject, as I have shown from the condemnation from the Council of Constance which condemns the idea that the accidents of the bread do not remain without a subject (accidentia panis non manent sine subjecta), implying that the position of the Catholic Church on the matter is that the accidents of the bread do remain without inhering in any subject, which as a matter of fact is exactly what the book you quoted in an earlier post said (“After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power”):

If you have the accidents of bread and wine remaining from the substance of bread and wine, you don’t have a transubstantial change to the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, you have a “consubstantial” change of the bread which is not a Catholic teaching of faith. Because you have the accidents retained as bread and wine co-existing with the body and blood of Jesus.

Here you make a statement which is completely erroneous:

The “acccidents” only appear to be bread and wine to our senses, but they contain substantially the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Accidents do not ever ‘contain’ a substance, they inhere in a substance. Even if you meant inhere in instead of contain, this statement would still be erroneous because the standard teaching of the Catholic Church is that the accidents remain without inhering in a subject.

Here you misunderstand completely what species means:

What you are failing to understand about transubstantiation is that Christ body and blood are truly present in these species which we are calling “accidents”. CCC 1373 states "He is present… most especially in the Eucharistic “species”.

The species simply refers to the appearance of the consecrated elements. The body and blood are present substantially in Eucharistic species, but the species of the bread and wine still do remain; to say otherwise would directly contradict Trent, which states that the species of the bread and wine remain (manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini). The presence of Christ’s body and blood is substantial, not accidental (or else as I pointed out, the consecrated elements would appear to us as flesh and blood instead of bread and wine).

Gabriel, it is ok to err and to make mistakes; that is human. I always hope that if I make a mistake when posting that it should either be brought to my attention, that I might correct it, or that nobody should read it, so that it will not have the potential to lead others into error (and I have made plenty of mistakes, I’m sure that Mary can or somebody who has had some interactions with me here and on other fora before can attest to that).

I think honestly you might want to contemplate whether or not some of the things you have written in this thread might not be contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, for your own benefit and for the benefit of others who might be confused or led into error by reading some of the statements about transubstantiation which you have posted above. I think your intentions are good, and that you are well-meaning, but you just seem to be a bit misguided. Forgive me if I seem harsh, but I am concerned, for both your well-being and the well-being of those who might be reading this thread. Prudence demands that debate you no further on this issue, as doing so will likely be to nobody’s benefit.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ConstantineTG;8753838]Like I said, its not that they are rejecting transubstantiation but that philosophical understanding of the process has never been taught in the East. Its just not the philosophy used by Eastern theologian to explain and understand the faith. Its not rejected because its wrong, its just a way of thinking that is not used in the East and therefore would be hard to understand for those who have lived thinking the way the East thinks.

Thank you for pointing out this fact; that at times there exists a difference of thinking, philosophy between East and West in regards to faith being expressed. These differences of faith expression derives from culture, language and understanding from each schools of thought, which is capable of change. What cannot change is the faith itself.

Faith then is what Iam addressing here. Let me be clear to you, I am not rejecting any notion of our Orthodox’s positon of the Real presence whether they accept transubstantiation or not.

I am only addressing those Orthodox and others who “reject” transubstantiation to be other than what the Catholic Church defines it to be. I do not contend with others who do not accept it nor have reason to reject it. Nor am I trying to force transubstantiation upon others to accept this Church’s teaching.

Iam addressing those who use transubstantiation as a way to defame the teachings of the Catholic church, and confuse the little ones that transubstantiation is a philosophical undertaking made by man to explain a mystery of the Change. Which is the point Iam addressing in this thread.

Transubstantiation alone as you say is a philosophical concept, which describes scientifically the change of a substance while the accidents from this change remain from the substance change.

Now in order for this to occur using the philosophical concept, the substance has to be destroyed physically inorder to take on this new change, while upon the destruction of the substance in the changing effect “caused” by nature retain the same accidents which remain from the change. This philosophical concept addresses the change caused by nature. This is the argument that Orthodox and others try to use in order to misrepresent transubstantiation in the Eucharist.

Here is the Catholic juxtaposition of transubstantiation. The difference begins in the cause and effect of this transubstantial change of the bread and wine. The cause and effect of the bread and wine comes from the divine power not nature itself. This alone separates the Orthodox opposition relating the philosophical concept of the change from the Catholic “faith” expressed from the change by divine power, not the philosophical concept of nature possessing the power to cause and effect this change.

“The council of Trent was TOTALLY Innocent of physics. They had in mind a conversion-process not a philosophical concept of physics defined by nature having the power to cause and effect this change.”

The Catholic faith does not express a philosophical concept from the cause and effect of the change described by the physical philosophical concept from transubstantiation which defines the change caused and effected this change by nature describing the natural accidents as permanently existing in this transubstantial change. Which those Orthodox and others falsely use this philosophical concept made by man to refute the Catholic interpretation and definition of transubstantion in the Eucharist which is caused by divine power.

These are the specifics I am addressing not “any” ones faith in the real presence. Iam defending my faith in the real presence.

If my demeaner from my posts appear to be coming across in a negative way, I beg for forgiveness in advance here. But due to my time limit to share my Catholic faith here and respect for others time here. I am guilty for being direct and at times rushed to put forth my thoughts in writing. I mean no offense.

Peace be with you

 

[dcointin]

Of all the supposed differences that separate the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, this one is least compelling. There is no difference in our doctrine of the eucharist, merely different ways of describing the same mystery.

 

[Wesley7]

Do Orthodox Christians believe in the Real Presence the same way Roman Catholics do? Do they differ on the matter of transubstansiation? Do they have open or closed Eucharist? Help is apreciated, God bless…

the orthodox archpriest or priest say the prayers over the gifts and say St. John Chystomom’s eucharistic prayer and take communion with a spoon believing that His (Jesus Christ) body and blood are present when they partake of holy communion with the spoon.

. . . . .

 

[ConstantineTG]

Of all the supposed differences that separate the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, this one is least compelling. There is no difference in our doctrine of the eucharist, merely different ways of describing the same mystery.

Right. This isn’t even on the list of what contributed to the schism. Although the leavening (or lack of it) of the bread did. But I guess as the schism was starting to boil over, sound theological debates gave way to some pettiness in the accusations.

 

[Wesley7]

Thank you for pointing out this fact; that at times there exists a difference of thinking, philosophy between East and West in regards to faith being expressed. These differences of faith expression derives from culture, language and understanding from each schools of thought, which is capable of change. What cannot change is the faith itself.

Faith then is what Iam addressing here. Let me be clear to you, I am not rejecting any notion of our Orthodox’s positon of the Real presence whether they accept transubstantiation or not.

I am only addressing those Orthodox and others who “reject” transubstantiation to be other than what the Catholic Church defines it to be. I do not contend with others who do not accept it nor have reason to reject it. Nor am I trying to force transubstantiation upon others to accept this Church’s teaching.

Iam addressing those who use transubstantiation as a way to defame the teachings of the Catholic church, and confuse the little ones that transubstantiation is a philosophical undertaking made by man to explain a mystery of the Change. Which is the point Iam addressing in this thread.

Transubstantiation alone as you say is a philosophical concept, which describes scientifically the change of a substance while the accidents from this change remain from the substance change.

Now in order for this to occur using the philosophical concept, the substance has to be destroyed physically inorder to take on this new change, while upon the destruction of the substance in the changing effect “caused” by nature retain the same accidents which remain from the change. This philosophical concept addresses the change caused by nature. This is the argument that Orthodox and others try to use in order to misrepresent transubstantiation in the Eucharist.

Here is the Catholic juxtaposition of transubstantiation. The difference begins in the cause and effect of this transubstantial change of the bread and wine. The cause and effect of the bread and wine comes from the divine power not nature itself. This alone separates the Orthodox opposition relating the philosophical concept of the change from the Catholic “faith” expressed from the change by divine power, not the philosophical concept of nature possessing the power to cause and effect this change.

“The council of Trent was TOTALLY Innocent of physics. They had in mind a conversion-process not a philosophical concept of physics defined by nature having the power to cause and effect this change.”

The Catholic faith does not express a philosophical concept from the cause and effect of the change described by the physical philosophical concept from transubstantiation which defines the change caused and effected this change by nature describing the natural accidents as permanently existing in this transubstantial change. Which those Orthodox and others falsely use this philosophical concept made by man to refute the Catholic interpretation and definition of transubstantion in the Eucharist which is caused by divine power.

These are the specifics I am addressing not “any” ones faith in the real presence. Iam defending my faith in the real presence.

If my demeaner from my posts appear to be coming across in a negative way, I beg for forgiveness in advance here. But due to my time limit to share my Catholic faith here and respect for others time here. I am guilty for being direct and at times rushed to put forth my thoughts in writing. I mean no offense.

Peace be with you

Just a note, this is too academic and explanatory for me. . . :tsktsk:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

First of all I wish to commend you for your efforts here; they have been very instructive and entertaining to say the least.

I take offense of your superfluous comment to the “illusionary” of my faith. Again you falsely misinterpret my Catholic faith with your false notions of reality defined by the Catholic Church from substance and accidents.

The purpose of my exchange with you is to remove your false pretenses of transubstantiation defined by the Catholic Church apart from the Faith of the Catholic Church in the real presence of Jesus Christ body and blood in His Eucharist.

So far you conflict the two in total error, by applying secular reasoning and philosophical concepts from terms to define something other than what the Catholic Church teaches introducing secular understandings to falsely express a reality, from what is expressed and believed in by “Faith” in Catholicism.

Cavaradossi; Here, you post an erroneous statement saying that the change in the Eucharist does not involve the accidents of the bread and wine remaining in reality, but only in an illusory fashion to the senses,

“First of all the Church used the word “substance” precisely to remove the naïveté associated with what we can touch or measure”. (Joseph Rat zinger) This is where you are misrepresenting Catholic teaching in transubstantiation of substance and accidents.

“Reality is not just what we can measure. It is not only “quantum’s, quantifiable entities that are real; on the contrary, these are always only manifestations of the hidden mystery of true being” (Joseph Rat zinger).

Substance defined by the Church from transubstantiation according to Joseph Rat zinger “does not refer to the quantum’s, but to the profound and fundamental basis of being, Jesus is not there… in the realm of what can be measured and quantified…Anyone who conceives of reality as being like that is deceiving himself about it and about himself. He is living his life all wrong”.

My position continues to agree with Cardinal Rat zinger here “The substance transformed… is what is at stake, and not the superficial category, to which everything we can measure or touch belong”. It is from here where I will hope to reveal to you your misunderstandings of my Catholic faith confusing it with carnal, secular knowledge of physical reality that can be measured and quantified ( to disprove your testing methods here) to philosophical undertakings of properties that exist to those which have taken on a Tran substantial change caused by divine power.

Thus far my posts have dealt with the understanding of the Catholic thought expressed in transubstantiation. Now I will attempt to reveal what exactly what the Catholic Church teaches in transubstantiation coupled with faith. Please allow me to correct any misunderstandings you and others may have about my position.

First of all the Catholic Church condemns any notion “that the body of Christ comes to add itself to the bread, as if bread and body were two similar things that could exist as two “substances”, in the same way, side by side” (Cardinal Rat zinger).

The Cardinal’s teaching conflicts with your “illusion” theory, and your position that bread and wine of themselves remain permanently in the accidents. Allow me to clarify.

The Cardinal takes it further regarding the visible accidents that remain as bread and wine here; “The Lord takes possession of the bread and wine;…lifts them up as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order”…

Here is where Cardinal Rat zinger floors your theory of accidents that are visible to our senses and tastes, “even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different…There where He has laid His hand, something new has come to be”.

cont;