V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Please retract this statement. Thanks.
VC
- Status
VC
B
brb3
Guest
I jest …
Seriously, I think u can bring things back into focus. Give it a shot … our I will, and confuse us more.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
I think the last several pages illustrates why the Eastern Church has decided not to define the process by which the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord.
It simply is. The Sacred Mystery is not defined much further than that.
It simply is. The Sacred Mystery is not defined much further than that.
R
rom422
Guest
Let us not forget that it is the same Holy Spirit who guides the Eastern Church that guides also the Western Church. Apparently the Holy Spirit moves them in different directions to give more perspective to this Sacred Mystery. And it is not altogether fruitless that the West had employed science and philosophy in elucidating the contents of the Scriptures. Thanks to the works of philosophizing theologians we have certain tools by which we can meet scientistic rationalists, agnostics, etc., in their own terms.
By the way, SonCatcher, you were one of the few who caught on the significance of Luke 22. VC mentioned it, but it seems to have been forgotten or missed in the thread. But not by you. I agree that it was a different cup based on Jewish rituals.
You were also absolutely right in pointing out why tradition is also necessary. The Bible is not easy to read, and provides many traps even for unsuspecting scholars. Thanks for your info.
T
TimothyH
Guest
I believe that Transubstantiation is explicit in Scripture. I believe that Transubstantiation is revealed to us by God explicitly in scripture.
In the morning a dew lay all about the camp, and when the dew evaporated, there on the surface of the desert were fine flakes like hoarfrost on the ground. On seeing it, the Israelites asked one another, “What is this?” for they did not know what it was. But Moses told them, “This is the bread which the LORD has given you to eat.” (Exodus 16:13-15)
This is exactly what the priest says at the Epiclisis of Eucharistic Prayer II
*Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. *
The Epiclisis is a very beautiful part of the Mass. It is where the priest calls down the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into the entire substance of Jesus Christ, and at that point the Holy Spirit is present in the Church in a very special way to make Christ present. It is the same Holy Spirit who made Christ present in Mary’s womb and the same Holy Spirit who gave miraculous bread to the Israelites in the desert - bread which satisfied every taste and nourished every person - the bread of life. When I hear the Epiclisis of Eucharistic Prayer II, I like to think that I am experiencing the same thing which the Israelites experienced in the desert, the evaporation of the “Dewfal” and the presence of miraculous bread, only what I experience is better.
The author of the Book of Wisom speaks very clearly about these things.
For the elements changed places with one another, as on a harp the notes vary the nature of the rhythm, while each note remains the same. This may be clearly inferred from the sight of what took place. For land animals were transformed into water creatures, and creatures that swim moved over to the land. Fire even in water retained its normal power, and water forgot its fire-quenching nature. Flames, on the contrary, failed to consume the flesh of perishable creatures that walked among them, nor did they melt the crystalline, easily melted kind of heavenly food. (Wisdom 19:18-21)
Here the author is speaking about matter having physical properties inconsistent with its appearance - fire burning in water and living creatures not consumed by flame. The author clearly states that elements changed places - that’s transubstantiation right there. The author of Wisdom also speaks about bread which satisfied beyond it’s natural abilities.
Instead of these things thou didst give thy people food of angels, and without their toil thou didst supply them from heaven with bread ready to eat, providing every pleasure and suited to every taste. For thy sustenance manifested thy sweetness toward thy children; and the bread, ministering to the desire of the one who took it, was changed to suit every one’s liking. (Wisdom 16:20-21)
Bread was changed. What more do we really have to read?
Twelve loaves of bread were placed before God in the Temple continuously. These loaves were called the “Bread of the Presence” and were replaced weekly. Only priests could eat it.
***And you shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always. *(Exodus 25:30)
Actually, “Bread of the Presence” is a poor translation. A better translation is “Bread of the Face of God.”
Most people don’t know this but the Levitical priests used to bring the bread out three times each year at the major festivals. They would bring out the gold table with the twelve loaves upon it, raise it up before the people and proclaim, “Behold God’s love for you!” Catholics understand this intuitively because this is exactly what the priest does at the Elevation when he raises the consecrated host and chalice and says “Behold!”
Catholics understand these things. They come very naturally to Catholics. I have non-Catholic friends with whom I have discussed these things and they struggle with them, but I do not. That’s the beauty of my faith, for me personally. It just makes so much sense.
I’m not saying that anyone elses faith is bad, or even that anyone elses faith is wrong. I just believe that transubstantiation and the Eucharist are explicit throughout scripture, and it is very beautiful.
I’ll end with this gem, a little passage that most people miss.
…they beheld God, and they ate and drank. (Exodus 24:11)
It is so beautfiful, and I get to do it every day if I want.
-Tim-
In the morning a dew lay all about the camp, and when the dew evaporated, there on the surface of the desert were fine flakes like hoarfrost on the ground. On seeing it, the Israelites asked one another, “What is this?” for they did not know what it was. But Moses told them, “This is the bread which the LORD has given you to eat.” (Exodus 16:13-15)
This is exactly what the priest says at the Epiclisis of Eucharistic Prayer II
*Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. *
The Epiclisis is a very beautiful part of the Mass. It is where the priest calls down the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into the entire substance of Jesus Christ, and at that point the Holy Spirit is present in the Church in a very special way to make Christ present. It is the same Holy Spirit who made Christ present in Mary’s womb and the same Holy Spirit who gave miraculous bread to the Israelites in the desert - bread which satisfied every taste and nourished every person - the bread of life. When I hear the Epiclisis of Eucharistic Prayer II, I like to think that I am experiencing the same thing which the Israelites experienced in the desert, the evaporation of the “Dewfal” and the presence of miraculous bread, only what I experience is better.
The author of the Book of Wisom speaks very clearly about these things.
For the elements changed places with one another, as on a harp the notes vary the nature of the rhythm, while each note remains the same. This may be clearly inferred from the sight of what took place. For land animals were transformed into water creatures, and creatures that swim moved over to the land. Fire even in water retained its normal power, and water forgot its fire-quenching nature. Flames, on the contrary, failed to consume the flesh of perishable creatures that walked among them, nor did they melt the crystalline, easily melted kind of heavenly food. (Wisdom 19:18-21)
Here the author is speaking about matter having physical properties inconsistent with its appearance - fire burning in water and living creatures not consumed by flame. The author clearly states that elements changed places - that’s transubstantiation right there. The author of Wisdom also speaks about bread which satisfied beyond it’s natural abilities.
Instead of these things thou didst give thy people food of angels, and without their toil thou didst supply them from heaven with bread ready to eat, providing every pleasure and suited to every taste. For thy sustenance manifested thy sweetness toward thy children; and the bread, ministering to the desire of the one who took it, was changed to suit every one’s liking. (Wisdom 16:20-21)
Bread was changed. What more do we really have to read?
Twelve loaves of bread were placed before God in the Temple continuously. These loaves were called the “Bread of the Presence” and were replaced weekly. Only priests could eat it.
***And you shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always. *(Exodus 25:30)
Actually, “Bread of the Presence” is a poor translation. A better translation is “Bread of the Face of God.”
Most people don’t know this but the Levitical priests used to bring the bread out three times each year at the major festivals. They would bring out the gold table with the twelve loaves upon it, raise it up before the people and proclaim, “Behold God’s love for you!” Catholics understand this intuitively because this is exactly what the priest does at the Elevation when he raises the consecrated host and chalice and says “Behold!”
Catholics understand these things. They come very naturally to Catholics. I have non-Catholic friends with whom I have discussed these things and they struggle with them, but I do not. That’s the beauty of my faith, for me personally. It just makes so much sense.
I’m not saying that anyone elses faith is bad, or even that anyone elses faith is wrong. I just believe that transubstantiation and the Eucharist are explicit throughout scripture, and it is very beautiful.
I’ll end with this gem, a little passage that most people miss.
…they beheld God, and they ate and drank. (Exodus 24:11)
It is so beautfiful, and I get to do it every day if I want.
-Tim-
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Tim,
Awesome.
VC
Awesome.
VC
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
My post # 43 answers that question. When Trent and the Catechism of the Catholic Church say the " Whole Christ, " they mean Christ with all his bodily accidents like quantity, all his limbs, hair, everything you would see if you saw him living on earth. St. Thomas gave an explanation of this which is in my post # 43. So when we say Christ is Substantially present we are speaking in that fashion. Philosophers call this Second Substance as opposed to First Substance which is the underlaying substance in which all accidents adhere. We cannot see First Substance. So the Whole Christ is spoken of as Second Substance which would be Christ as the Apostles saw him on earth, except now he is in his Glorified Body. Read the post I referenced and you will see better. Linus
A
Arthropod
Guest
Firstly, the greek text does not have the word “(dead)” in it. If it did, I might give this idea more serious consideration. Secondly, the next sentence: “The words I have spoken to you are spirit, and they are life”. What is he saying here, if not that his words are supposed to be interpreted in a spiritual sense?
Also, read Samuel 23 up to verse 17 to find out what the eating of flesh and the drinking of blood meant when said in a non-literal manner. If you use this sense to interpret John 6, it gives you a really good explanation of why his disciples left him, saying it was a hard saying.
Another plausible explanation for why they left him was because they realised they weren’t getting a second free lunch. Christ told them at the beginning of the passage that all they wanted was another free lunch, giving this idea more credence.
Finally, I am curious as to what you think of the Augustine quote that I quoted, where he said, and I paraphrase from memory: “to what purpose dost thou ready thy teeth and my stomach? Believe and you have eaten already.”
Is it not the Roman catholic position that we can’t read the bible and use our brains, we must go by what the church fathers said it said instead? Given that Augustine is regarded as one of the greatest theologians of all time, will you not conceed that his comments make the protestant interpretation at the very least plausible?
A
Arthropod
Guest
I notice that all instances of transubstantiation that you mention involve some change of substance. Unlike the transubstantiation that Rome teaches, which involves absolutely no observable change whatsoever.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Hello Linusthe2nd. Yes I read post #43 previously but I must be a bit obtuse as I didn’t really see anything that directly explained how sensible bodily accidents can be present but the bodily sensible species not be present.
I couldn’t see the relevance of impassibility either - perhaps you could tease that out for me?
Yes I understand “wholly”. What is more ambiguous in english is what the Latin transliterated words “fully” and “real” mean when referring to Jesus’s bodily presence. Are you able to provide Internet references to Trent or other authoritive sources that explicitly speak of “Jesus’s body being fully present”? The context might provide further insight.
OK, I am not really up to play with the ramifications of the distinction in this discussion. Can you tease out what you mean?
BTW not sure why you say we cannot “see first substance.” We cannot “see” anysubstance can we? Substances are inferred through their visible accidents whose sensible species impress our senses. The Eucharist doesn’t even communicate Jesus’s bodily sensible species! So we cannot even infer, by reason, His substantial bodily presence. It is only infered by faith from the sensible species of bread we know to have been validly consecrated.
O
Ontheway
Guest
Thank you Tim. This bears repeating.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
Thank you. I usually bow out of these heated threads much earlier as what I write seems to get lost in the debate. I am glad my limited (name removed by moderator)ut is appreciated.
:tiphat:
D
davidv
Guest
Why does a change in substance require an observable change? What logical necessity demands this?
B
brb3
Guest
If it were to follow laws of physics…it would be an observable change. The retention of Guten allergy, suggest its molecular structure survives the Transubstantiation event.
B
brb3
Guest
But, even if we allow bread & Guten molecules to persist …IMO, this in no way proves Christ is not fully present (body, blood, soul, divinity…Real Presence) in the blessed Sacrament.
B
brb3
Guest
He said he was …so he is !!! Its a mystery we can’t explain …so says the Eastern Church.
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
First, since you bring up symbolic eating of flesh in the Old Testament, I will disagree with this analogy, primarily since Christ uses the Greek word ‘trogo’ to describe eating His flesh, which is always used literally in Scripture and ancient Greek. See this link for an explanation of the Greek: catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6
And now onto Augustine: Protestants love to perform eisegesis of literally everything regarding faith. It is all personal interpretation. So here, my Protestant friend, from Augustine (Explanations on the Psalms, 98, 9):
And another (from “Sermons” (227):
If you actually read more of his writings, you will discover that he taught the true presence of Christ, and understood it in both a spiritual and physical sense. So no, I will not concede anything, because you ask me to do so on false pretenses.
T
TimothyH
Guest
The Old Testament examples of matter having properties inconsistent with it’s nature, elements changing places, etc., are a forshadowing of the reality to come in the person of Jesus Christ.
A curious thing happened after Jesus rose from the dead…
*And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. (Luke 24:30-31)
When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus there, but did not know it was Jesus. (John 20:14)
Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” (John 20:26)*
Remember that Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus has overcome death.
Jesus appears and disappears at will, and hides his nature from those around him. Jesus overcame death itself, and his risen, glorified body has power over matter and time and space, power to transcend the laws of creation and to transcend creation itself.
-Tim-
B
brb3
Guest
Christ taught “I AM the bread of life, that comes down from heaven”…
So, we Catholics rightly receive the Eucharist as the Eternal Bread of Life, Christ in every sense, a REAL PRESENCE. Healing, saving Grace received from the Eucharist,… both for body & mind/soul. The Food & Drink of Immortality.
We have … what Ponce deLeon sought & didn’t find.
So, we Catholics rightly receive the Eucharist as the Eternal Bread of Life, Christ in every sense, a REAL PRESENCE. Healing, saving Grace received from the Eucharist,… both for body & mind/soul. The Food & Drink of Immortality.
We have … what Ponce deLeon sought & didn’t find.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
Tim, an even more curious item that you missed in this post:
When the disciples returned from Emmaus, it says:
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 24:35[/BIBLEDRB]
It was by the breaking of the bread that they recognized Him. Possibly, it was in the bread, itself. These disciples were not even recorded to have been at the Last Supper.
- Status