The Bread And Wine

[liberalcatholic]

What is the biggest reason people do not see the bread and wine as Jesus’ body and blood?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

I would suggest that the biggest problem that Protestants have with the Eucharist is the priesthood.

Protestants don’t believe in the priesthood. They don’t believe that a priest acts in persona Christi (person of Christ). So, when the priest holds the bread and says “This is my body”, the Protestants think this is blasphamy.

(You should hear the Protestants freak out when a priest says “I absolve you of your sins” )

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

There’s also the argument of cannibalism… But I think this is just a childish argument.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Faith.

 

[ralphinal]

Pride. One man said “I see it thusly. I will not change.” Others said “We agree. We must all be right and you are wrong.”

 

[NDfan]

What is the biggest reason people do not see the bread and wine as Jesus’ body and blood?

I see it as Jesus body and blood but don’t agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[ralphinal]

I see it as Jesus body and blood but don’t agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

I think that sometimes Catholics miss that subtle point. Transubstantiation is an attempt to explain what occures. The Real Presence IS what occures.

 

[NDfan]

I think that sometimes Catholics miss that subtle point. Transubstantiation is an attempt to explain what occures. The Real Presence IS what occures.

Ralph I think that’s right on point. I would rather not try to explain something that really can’t be explained. Like trying to explain where GOD came from. You could probably use a fancy philosophical term but it would never do it justice.

 

[Steadfast]

Reformed Christians will say that it is because Christ’s Body cannot be at two places at the same time, never mind thousands or millions and that it is presently at the right hand of the Father.

Other than that, I think people are suspicious of what they perceive to be “magic”.

I appreciate that you generalized and said “people” rather than “Protestants”. You are probably one of those enlightened few who realize that a good number of Protestants believe in the Real Presence.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph I think that’s right on point. I would rather not try to explain something that really can’t be explained. Like trying to explain where GOD came from. You could probably use a fancy philosophical term but it would never do it justice.

I have no issue with Transubstantiation, and not just because I am CAtholic. I just see no logical need for bread to be there.

In any event, I wonder if transubstantiation would be taught if people had not begun to teach that Jesus was not there.

 

[Steadfast]

In any event, I wonder if transubstantiation would be taught if people had not begun to teach that Jesus was not there.

Interesting thought.

I have often considered that the idea arose as a kind of hyper-realist reaction to competing theories which ranged from symbolism to spiritual partaking to impanation and so on.

 

[christcnection1]

One person mentioned faith here…

Yes, I think it would be impossible to find sufficient information which suggested those in the early Church believed is was symbolic. I do believe that history favors the Catholic perspective by a landslide.

I talked to my old Protestant pastor about this, a very intelligent, holy, and loving individual. He rejects the Catholic Church’s stance on this because during a Mass that he attended, he did not “see” the bread turn into real flesh or the wine turn into real blood. Hence, this is the basis of his rejection of transubstantiation.

When I pointed him to Eucharistic miracles through the ages, he did not have an answer. He may have to view this phenomena as some kind of hoax or deception, or that this miracle has demonic origins.

His problem, as with so many, is lack of faith. There is not a lack of historical or miraculous evidence. That said, I can understand why so many disbelieve; as a former nonbeliever it took me a long time to appreciate the splendor of this most sacred mystery.

 

[NDfan]

I have no issue with Transubstantiation, and not just because I am CAtholic. I just see no logical need for bread to be there.

In any event, I wonder if transubstantiation would be taught if people had not begun to teach that Jesus was not there.

I’m confused when you say no logical need for bread to be there. Can you explain? Thanks

 

[underdog]

What is the biggest reason people do not see the bread and wine as Jesus’ body and blood?

I think all Christians see the bread and wine as Jesus’ body and blood.

 

[ralphinal]

I’m confused when you say no logical need for bread to be there. Can you explain? Thanks

Well, why do we need the bread? Are we making sandwiches? Toast? The appearance of bread is all we need so not to offend our disdane for eating human flesh. We need nothing that bread itself offers, as the food we eat is from Heaven.

 

[Steadfast]

The trajectory appears to have gone something like this (be reminded, this is a thumbnail):

Very early on the whole church was almost unanimous in it’s acceptance of the idea that in the Eucharist we somehow receive the true Body and Blood of Jesus.

As theories developed as to how this came about, more voices rose taking exception to the very idea, but these voices arguing for a spiritual or symbolic presence were never anything but a very tiny minority.

A number of theories were brought forward seeking to explain the communication of attributes in the sacrament all of which fully admitted a real, physical presence.

Most of these theories were couched in philosophical language having to do with accident and substance since this was the way people talked about such things.

I think it can be said with some degree of fairness and accuracy that eventually two views rose to the top which were strongest for the idea of a real presence. One was what came to be known as Transubstantiation, the other has been called Consubstantiation.

The former had official church sanction and therefore the majority and was eventually adopted as the official view.

Now, I am not saying that the latter view was ever a serious contender but it can be shown to have had the implied sympathy of no less an authority than Irenaeus and a decent number of scholars agreed.

The other views did not just go away but they went underground until the Reformation when they ALL surfaced again.

At any rate, it bears noting that any view which denies the real presence is the novelty and the one, historically speaking, on the outside looking in.

This doesn’t mean that it’s wrong though.

It’s wrong because it betrays a radical misunderstanding of the Incarnation.

 

[christcnection1]

I’m confused when you say no logical need for bread to be there. Can you explain? Thanks

I’m sure they will explain, but I took it to mean that if it’s only bread, than essentially the act (whether symbolic or something else) is baseless and meaningless. There would be no practical purpose for Jesus to use such strong language or promote any kind of action.

Okay, let’s say it’s symbolic. What is it supposed to represent? Unity? Sharing? The breaking of Jesus body on the cross? All these points can be addressed far better through other means than using a symbolic loaf of bread or wafers.

Frankly, to me, it seems like a meaningless act that has little or no significance. It’s hard to be inspired by bread alone! (or grape juice for that matter)

I think this is why Protestants do it so rarely: it inspires almost no one. (Especially those who think it’s totally symbolic)

 

[christcnection1]

One was what came to be known as Transubstantiation, the other has been called Consubstantiation.
.

For starters, those who believe in Consubstantiation are far closer to the Catholic perspective than many of our separated brethren. So I believe your viewpoint on this is far more respectable than many Non-Catholic Christians.

However, I believe, as most Catholic here do, that our Lord gave us countless Eucharistic miracles through the ages (and even to this day) which bolsters our belief in transubstantiation.

Do you believe Eucharistic miracles or hoaxes or some kind of demonic deception? If hypothetically they are miracles from God, does that change your opinion on this? If no, why not?

 

[NDfan]

One person mentioned faith here…

Yes, I think it would be impossible to find sufficient information which suggested those in the early Church believed is was symbolic. I do believe that history favors the Catholic perspective by a landslide.

I talked to my old Protestant pastor about this, a very intelligent, holy, and loving individual. He rejects the Catholic Church’s stance on this because during a Mass that he attended, he did not “see” the bread turn into real flesh or the wine turn into real blood. Hence, this is the basis of his rejection of transubstantiation.

When I pointed him to Eucharistic miracles through the ages, he did not have an answer. He may have to view this phenomena as some kind of hoax or deception, or that this miracle has demonic origins.

His problem, as with so many, is lack of faith. There is not a lack of historical or miraculous evidence. That said, I can understand why so many disbelieve; as a former nonbeliever it took me a long time to appreciate the splendor of this most sacred mystery.

Be careful when you try to use church history on this because there is no documentation that outright supports transubstantiation. All we know about the early church is that they worshiped mostly in their homes each week during the agape meal. Communion was observed if you will at the end of their worship and was never preceded by any liturgical practice.

Institution of the Lord’s supper was really the institution of commemorating the new covenant similar to the commemoration of the old covenant in the Seder meal at passover. The 3rd cup of redemption which the Jews drink after their meal was a cup of wine mixed with warm water. This was to symbolize the blood of the lambs that were slain before the exile from Egypt. The Jews also consume the bread as a representation of the body of the lambs. As you know before the destruction of the Temple the Jews actually ate the passover lamb. But since the destruction of the Temple the lamb is represented by the Zeroa on their Seder plate, which of course does not get eaten, and the bread is consumed.

So when Christ took the bread and wine, which we read HE did after their meal alluding to the fact that they were eating their Seder meal, he raised the 3rd cup of wine, that being the cup of redemption and the bread. HIS statement that this is MY body was done to instruct the Apostles that now they commemorate HIS sacrifice as the new covenant which HE then finalized after raising the cup. Remember Jesus didn’t say this cup of my blood, HE stated this cup is the new covenant in MY blood. Meaning not the blood of the Lambs of the passover but that of Christ’s being the final sacrificial Lamb.

PEACE

 

[Steadfast]

Do you believe Eucharistic miracles or hoaxes or some kind of demonic deception?

I honestly don’t have an opinion though I sense that you think i should and maybe you’re right.

I usually have the common reaction to stories like these whether they are of weeping statues, sandwiches shaped like our Lady or bleeding hosts.

I am turned off by them but when I get off my high horse and think about them I always find myself asking, “Why?”

I hear you when you say that they argue for Transubstantiation. I don’t get the argument at all but then even accepting it, the “why?” won’t go away.

I suppose you’d say that they support transubstantiation so that people would know the truth of the Church’s claim to having the authority to define such things.

If that’s why, they seem remarkably ineffective. The only people I know who believe in them are people who are already Catholic…

So, without going down the “satanic deception” road, I am left with my “why?”

If hypothetically they are miracles from God, does that change your opinion on this? If no, why not?

If I knew they were miracles from God, and I understood why they necessitate transubstantiation, yes, that would probably change my mind.

But that’s the issue isn’t it? I don’t see any reason to believe that they are miracles from God.