Indeed, you seem quite confused. Properly speaking the Eucharist, from Greek meaning thanksgiving, refers to the action or rite by which bread and wine are consecrated. The bread and wine, both before and after the consecration may be called the holy gifts. Sometimes the term Eucharist is used to refer to the consecrated elements, but they may also be called, the consecrated elements, the offerings, etc… You seem to be grasping at straws here, as it should be rather obvious that I meant the consecrated gifts, not the gifts before consecration.
Thanks for your clarification. From your comments it would appear that I find some contradiction of terms from when and how they are expressed in the Latin rites or Greek rites or another Orthodox rite.
If not properly stated it is easy to take ones comments out of context, as I found myself doing in reading your posts.
Had you applied “holy gifts” from your original post, I don’t think I would of drawn a confused consclusion from your post when you used “gifts” to define the body, blood of Jesus Christ.
I have found that much misunderstanding comes from definition of terms between our different rites, which both begin from two different means of thought expressed, yet both arrive at the same revelation.
Thus; you believe the Eucharist is not ordinary bread and wine, you do well. I profess the same thing. **My understanding **raises my Catholic faith much deeper and higher into the mystery of the Eucharist because transubstantiation defines to me that the substance of bread and wine are no more ordinary bread and wine.
You see before the common man could read and write and believed the world was flat. My Catholic faith professed the RP in the Eucharist without the need of “transubstantiation”. Because our ECF’s already believed a “change”, “transformation” has occurred to the confected bread and wine.
But when man grew in knowledge and understanding, the world begged the question? how do you believe the bread and wine have changed into the body and blood of Christ? The Church answered these little ones appetite from their carnal knowledge “transubstantiation” of course. The question was never; what did the bread and wine change into? because this was already revealed and believed in from our Catholic faith always.
I find your argument against the definition of transubstantiation as being paganology to be false (scientifically) at best and very misunderstood. Because the church confirms a change has occured to the bread and wine by transubstantiation. You relate this to a form of paganology? When you believe the same thiing that a change has occured without trans.?
You are relating a proven scientific term such as transubstantiation to be paganology? This is a strawmans argument.
Aristotle, transubstantiation never ever said that the bread and wine changes into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. You appear to be making this false profession of faith all by yourself here?
The Catholic Church never makes this declaration of faith as you appear to be making, by attaching poor Aristotle and transubstantiation to define a mystery of the Eucharist of the true presence.
Can you reveal when and how Aristotle or Transubstantiation reveal that the bread and wine by themselves change into the RP of Jesus body, blood? When and where did you ever come across this new teaching? Because your understanding of Aristotle and transubstantiation is never a Catholic understanding of faith.
