The Eucharist - Consubstantiation? Symbolic? I don't think so

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Once again, and know I harp on this a lot, but please read your history, especially the early church fathers and how the apostles passed the priesthood down to and through them.
Protestant by definition means “protest”. The Church was in turmoil over something we Americans don’t have-- the Church and Politics were thoroughly mixed in Christian Europe.
The corruption (by men’s lust for power and money) was trying to be “reformed” by Martin Luther. He kept what he thought was true, but in breaking from the Roman Church, he broke the line and began a splintering process that still continues today.
The “mainline” Protestant churches, such as Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, kept much of the Catholic trappings, like a hierarchy (“bishops”), stained glass windows, architecture, a pulpit, --art and music, which I think connect us to God in a wonderful way–etc.
The groups that splintered from them, such as Puritans, Congregational, Quakers, etc wanted to get rid of all the “trappings that stunk of Rome” and made churches that were plain to the point of being baren. They kept a steeple, but Quakers have no ministers, some have no music or art at all.
Further splintering in America led to what we have now, megachurches with One Minister (no hierarchy) no one to oversee what any sub-minister is doing, and people so hungry for Jesus that they wave their hands in the air trying to locate his Spirirt, like satelite dishes aiming for a signal.
They don’t believe in the Pope, but they start their own churches and consequently each has a Pope, of sorts.
MY POINT is that some churches have a watered down version of Catholcism that can be traced back to these splits over dogma, faith, liturgical rituals, rites, prayers, and mostly Tradition, which was when they threw out the baby with the bathwater, because we Catholics have a Sacred Tradition that dates back to the Jews, and Jesus was a Jew.
We have both Scripture and Tradition through which the Holy Spirit guides us.
Removing tradition, and “rituals” is not a good idea. As humans, we connect with one another through tradition and we like rituals in the sense that we know what will happen next. We generally prefer order over chaos. ( My Protestant friend who complained about our rituals had a “traditional wedding”. I just looked at her sideways and said, “That sounds like a tradition and a ritual”. She asked for “Here Comes the Bride” and I sadly informed her that the song is from the opera Lohengrin and was based on a pagan wedding.)
The splinters of splinters have preaching as the main focus of their services. The problem with that is the preacher gets all the glory, and disagreements, ego problems and so forth crop up.
As for corruption, I think televangelists who can reach many people, easily fall into corruption through the same old things, Money and Power.
Historically, of course, we have the Counter Reformation, when Rome answered Luther et al, and saints, such as St Francis deSales who did extensive “pamphleting” and thus brought many Presbyterians back into the fold.
CHRIST IS LITERALLY, not symbolically, PRESENT in our churches. Our liturgy keeps us orderly. We don’t shout Amen or start speaking in tongues when moved to do so. CHRIST IS STILL PHYSICALLY PRESENT on earth, as His Father sent him.
When a Protestant corners me and asks “Have you taken Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?” I aswer “Yes! In His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, through the Eucharist. You can’t get more personal than that!”
I again will refer you to some books which may help. A Concise History of the Catholic Church by Thomas Bokenkotter is a good place to start for history.
Hilaire Belloc’s series on Church History is excellent.
No Price Too High, by Deacon Alex Jones is a wonderful testimony of a man searching and learning and bringing his congregation into the Catholic Church, and what a struggle he had!
Scott Hahn’s testimony Rome Sweet Home is truly ‘sweet’, but his deep faith and intellect, his intense suffering along with his wife, Kimberly, is absolutely one of the best books on my list.
In fact, I would recommend the latter two first before you delve into the deeper histories.
God bless you on your Faith Journeys! God bless all of us as we become closer to Him, through his Son and the Holy Spirit.
Thanks again for your references. There is a differnce between “symbolically present” and “spritiually present”.
In the protestant churches of the world - in fact, anywhere where two or more are gathered in His name, I believe He is there is the form of the Advocate or Holy Spirit. The protestant churches I have attended Jesus is “spiritually present”. Not in the flesh and blood as well at the Eucharist as Catholics define it. Yes, Jesus may not be there in the “fullness” that Catholics experience at their masses, but He is there. Do we protestants really understand this - probably not. Maybe experiencing the Eucharist as John 6 expresses it and as Jesus commands it , would alleviate the needs to 'wave the hands" and “feel” his presence. I believe that the we protestants - in this way - are not getting the “fullness of the faith” and what Jesus commanded in John 6. It is not the only reason, but one of the reasons why I seek to convert to the Catholic faith. God Bless You for the signposts you put along my path!🙂
 
Thanks again for your references. There is a differnce between “symbolically present” and “spritiually present”.
In the protestant churches of the world - in fact, anywhere where two or more are gathered in His name, I believe He is there is the form of the Advocate or Holy Spirit. The protestant churches I have attended Jesus is “spiritually present”. Not in the flesh and blood as well at the Eucharist as Catholics define it. Yes, Jesus may not be there in the “fullness” that Catholics experience at their masses, but He is there. Do we protestants really understand this - probably not. Maybe experiencing the Eucharist as John 6 expresses it and as Jesus commands it , would alleviate the needs to 'wave the hands" and “feel” his presence. I believe that the we protestants - in this way - are not getting the “fullness of the faith” and what Jesus commanded in John 6. It is not the only reason, but one of the reasons why I seek to convert to the Catholic faith. God Bless You for the signposts you put along my path!🙂
Dear brownjt, 👍

Your “journey” is in my prayers at my 2:00 AM hour of Eucharistic Adoration on the weekends. We have 24/7 Adoration in our Chapel. For the locations of Churches which have some form of Eucharistic Adoration, go to www.acfp2000.com

I have read “Rome Sweet Home” by Scott & Kimberly Hahn twice and agree that it is the best book for anyone to read.

The other book I often recommend is “In the Presence of Our Lord, the History, Theology, and Psychology of Eucharistic Devotion” by Father Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R. and James Monti. I loved marking or highlighting my favorite pages.

Blessings,
grannymh
 
Here’s some information on the Catholic Eucharist plus a way to use a variety of Bible quotes as a meditation over several days.

First read

www.rockforddiocese.org click Meet Bishop Doran. Then click Bishop Doran’s pastoral letter on the Eucharist, 1997.
or go to [www.rockforddiocese.org/bishop](http://www.rockforddiocese.org/bishop)

After you have read the above, follow the trail below through scripture as a meditation.

Begin by meditating on John 6: 35. This is key to understanding the Bread of Life Discourse (found in John 6: 22 -71.) Consider that John 6: 35 points directly to the Institution of the Eucharist (found in Luke 22: 14-20) Take your time. “Rome wasn’t built in a day.”

Next time, meditate on Luke 22: 14-20. Think about how the Last Supper leads to the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

When you are ready to spend more quiet time, go to the beginning of John 6: 22 -71. Remind yourself that the Jews were familiar with the miracle of manna given to their ancestors in the desert. Therefore, Jesus needed to make sure that they didn’t think He was going to turn into bread similar to manna. So Jesus explained about the “true bread” which comes from God and gives life to the world. Of course Jesus is the One Who comes from God. Read John 3: 16 &17 a couple of times.

As you continue with John 6: 22-71, you will find that Jesus went on to emphasize that what comes from heaven, which referred to the Divinity of the Son of God, was actually Himself, present in flesh and blood before the crowd. As we meditate on Jesus giving Himself to us, we look back to John 6: 35 to find out how. The answer of course is “I am the Bread of Life” which is not like the manna which Jewish ancestors received. It may remind people of manna, but the “reality” is Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Recall your previous meditation on Luke 22: 14-20. Think about this passage as a clearer answer to the question of “how” Jesus will be present to us in the 21st century.

It is important to understand that “reality" is not only what we can measure with our senses. Who we are, or the substance of our being, or our human nature is not the same as the color of our hair, the fat on our bones or any adjective used to describe our appearance. For example, we can change the color of our hair and become slim, but we are still Joe or Jane, etc. We know instinctively that our being, the who we are, still exists. This example of remaining our self can be described as our substance being present while our appearances change.

Hopefully, this will help you to understand the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

After His Resurrection, Jesus is truly present. However, when we are at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, instead of seeing the color of Jesus’ hair, we see the color of the bread. The appearances have changed. In the Eucharist, the Divine Jesus Who rose from the dead is now substantially present. It is His power as God that allows the bread to retain its appearances so that we can easily receive Him.

Today, when we watch the priest lift the Sacred Host, we can believe with certainty that the reality of Jesus is before us. He is truly, substantially present under the appearances or signs of bread. What our eyes see are only the appearances or the signs of bread. What we taste and swallow are the appearances of bread. What we receive is Jesus Christ, Himself. Love Him with all your being!

Blessings,
grannymh
 
An interesting post from an Orthodox forum

31-12-2008, 12:27 PM
M.C. Steenberg
Moderator & Orthodox Clergy (?)
Church: Russian Orthodox

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 2,283
Code:
* +1

+4
Originally Posted by Vasiliki D. View Post
I have heard that the Church has come across situations where the Eucharist WAS actually turned into real body and real blood. In these cases, the Church forbids the Holy Eucharist to be given to anyone
Indeed, there is an appendix in various patristic and liturgical handbooks for priests that address precisely this possibility: “What to do if you gaze into the chalice and find that the holy bread and holy wine have visible become flesh and blood”; and, as you say, the instruction is that this not be consumed or given to the people.

The bread and wine offered at the altar become the true body and true blood of the Saviour. This is unequivocally stated at the prayer before communion, as in so many other places. It is still identified in the text and prayers of the Liturgy itself as ‘holy bread’, even after the fullness of the consecration in which it mystically becomes the Lord’s flesh, as we’ve discussed previously here. The task of the faithful person is not to attempt the dissection of this, too, by some scientific formula – even if that formula is the pious insistence that ‘bread is no longer bread, wine no longer wine’. This may be pious; it is still scientific and analytical. Rather, we draw near in faith to the mystery of the one who makes himself fully available, fully encountered in the eucharist; who takes bread and says ‘this is my body’, wine and says ‘this is my blood’. We are blessed to receive the true blood and body of Christ – a gift beyond any other in creation. Especially at the Nativity, we are called to receive Him, rather than dissect Him.

INXC, Dcn Matthew
 
That one guy,

That is interesting information. I’m aware of a couple of incidences where the bread has completely changed (by completely, I mean even the accidents changed). But I wasn’t aware that the Church has even developed rules by which to go by. Leave it to Mother Church, of course!!! :cool:
 
and, yet, another one,…

Yesterday, 10:28 AM
Father David Moser
Moderator & Orthodox Clergy (?)
Church: Russian Orthodox (ROCOR)

Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,347
Code:
* +1

0
Originally Posted by Peter S. View Post
We do not eat it in the cases when it has become meat, but still it is the body and blood of Christ. Aren’t we supposed to burn it then?
We are supposed to call the Bishop. He decides what to do after that.

Fr David Moser
 
An interesting post from an Orthodox forum

Originally Posted by Vasiliki D. View Post

Indeed, there is an appendix in various patristic and liturgical handbooks for priests that address precisely this possibility: “What to do if you gaze into the chalice and find that the holy bread and holy wine have visible become flesh and blood”; and, as you say, the instruction is that this not be consumed or given to the people.

The bread and wine offered at the altar become the true body and true blood of the Saviour. This is unequivocally stated at the prayer before communion, as in so many other places. It is still identified in the text and prayers of the Liturgy itself as ‘holy bread’, even after the fullness of the consecration in which it mystically becomes the Lord’s flesh, as we’ve discussed previously here. The task of the faithful person is not to attempt the dissection of this, too, by some scientific formula – even if that formula is the pious insistence that ‘bread is no longer bread, wine no longer wine’. This may be pious; it is still scientific and analytical. Rather, we draw near in faith to the mystery of the one who makes himself fully available, fully encountered in the eucharist; who takes bread and says ‘this is my body’, wine and says ‘this is my blood’. We are blessed to receive the true blood and body of Christ – a gift beyond any other in creation. Especially at the Nativity, we are called to receive Him, rather than dissect Him.

INXC, Dcn Matthew
And yet more do not believe than do believe. How is this possible?

Our God is an Awesome God:thumbsup: Amen!

PJM m.c.
 
We are supposed to call the Bishop. He decides what to do after that.

Fr David Moser
It all sounds like LANCIANO!

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

And regards to “symbolism” a good study of the origin of the word is in order:

Etymology: in sense 1, from Late Latin symbolum, from Late Greek symbolon, from Greek, token, sign; in other senses from Latin *symbolum *token, sign, symbol, from Greek symbolon, literally, token of identity verified by comparing its other half, from symballein to throw together, compare (from *syn- *+ ballein to throw )

“The Greek word symbolon meant half of a broken object, for example, aseal presented as a token of recognition. The broken parts were placedtogether to verify the bearer’s identity. The symbol of faith, then, isa sign of recognition and communion between believers. Symbolon alsomeans a gathering, collection or summary. A symbol of faith is a summaryof the principal truths of the faith and therefore serves as the first and fundamental point of reference for catechesis.” (CCC 188).

I only bring this up lest someone tries to whip out a certain Augustine quote in which he refers to the “symbols” of “bread and wine” in the Eucharist" (and actually, the bread and wine ARE symbols… that become the REAL Body and Blood of Jesus!).
 
I only bring this up lest someone tries to whip out a certain Augustine quote in which he refers to the “symbols” of “bread and wine” in the Eucharist" (and actually, the bread and wine ARE symbols… that become the REAL Body and Blood of Jesus!).
I’ve heard them referred to as ‘accidents’. Which,I think is in reference to two things coming together to create an entirely new thing.🤷
 
An interesting post from an Orthodox forum

Dear That one guy,

What is being referred to are miracles, not always bread becoming flesh, connected with the Eucharist itself. St. Clare of Assisi turning back the Saracen soldiers through the power of the Blessed Sacrament is one of a large variety of Eucharistic miracles.

What needs to be remembered is that the greatest, unique, incomparable miracle is Transubstantiation. The purpose of the miracles was to draw attention to the fact that the Catholic Eucharist is not symbolic but definitely real.

I’ve been doing some research via www.therealpresence.org If you have any particular questions, post them and I will answer them later this weekend.

Blessings,
grannymh
 
and yet another really interesting post from the same russian orthodox forum

08-07-2006, 10:49 AM
Father David Moser
Moderator & Orthodox Clergy (?)
Church: Russian Orthodox (ROCOR)

Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,347
Code:
* +1

0
Originally Posted by fr_r_v View Post
Whatever word he used St John certainly did not intend the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation.
There is currently a seminary professor in Mosow (Mr Osipov I believe his name is) who gives a very interesting perspective on this topic. He explains that the bread and the wine do not become the actual crucified body and blood of Christ, but rather that the bread and the wine are hypostatically joined to Christ in the same manner as He was initially hypostatically joined to the body in the womb of the Holy Virgin. In this manner when we partake of the Holy Mysteries, we do indeed partake of the flesh and blood of Christ, but at the same time it is not as if we cut off a finger or a piece of thigh muscle and eat it. If you read all of St John’s quotes with this in mind, you will see that there is no confict at all with suh an understanding.

AS to the prohibition to eat blood (and now I am no longer speaking of the views of Mr Osipov, but rather my own opinion), one must understand the meaning of that prohibition, rather than the “letter of the law”. Blood is closely identified with the soul - and if one were to eat the blood of an animal, one would also “commune” with its soul, taking in its nature. (this also relates to the reason that we do not eat of meat and animal products during the fast) However our salvation is not to become like the beasts, but like Christ and so to partake of His Most Precious Blood is also to unite oneself with His soul and so become more like Him. So the prohibition against eating the blood of animals was to protect the people of God from becoming imbued with the soul of the animals - that is the earthly nature - so that they might be less weighed down by this world at the coming of their salvation. I’m sure that this is at best an incomplete nd rather cursory take on the topic, and I apologize, however, for such a forum this is all that is really possible.

Fr David Moser

fascinating.
 
An interesting post from an Orthodox forum

31-12-2008, 12:27 PM
M.C. Steenberg
Moderator & Orthodox Clergy (?)
Church: Russian Orthodox

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 2,283
Code:
* +1

+4
Originally Posted by Vasiliki D. View Post

Indeed, there is an appendix in various patristic and liturgical handbooks for priests that address precisely this possibility: “What to do if you gaze into the chalice and find that the holy bread and holy wine have visible become flesh and blood”; and, as you say, the instruction is that this not be consumed or given to the people.

The bread and wine offered at the altar become the true body and true blood of the Saviour. This is unequivocally stated at the prayer before communion, as in so many other places. It is still identified in the text and prayers of the Liturgy itself as ‘holy bread’, even after the fullness of the consecration in which it mystically becomes the Lord’s flesh, as we’ve discussed previously here. The task of the faithful person is not to attempt the dissection of this, too, by some scientific formula – even if that formula is the pious insistence that ‘bread is no longer bread, wine no longer wine’. This may be pious; it is still scientific and analytical. Rather, we draw near in faith to the mystery of the one who makes himself fully available, fully encountered in the eucharist; who takes bread and says ‘this is my body’, wine and says ‘this is my blood’. We are blessed to receive the true blood and body of Christ – a gift beyond any other in creation. Especially at the Nativity, we are called to receive Him, rather than dissect Him.

INXC, Dcn Matthew
Dissect him…?! Whether you are Lutheran (or some of the other protestant faiths) that believe in the Real Presence - albeit not like the Catholics who insist that the John 6 phrase is literal - participation in the Eucharist is expected and beneficial for the graces it gives…But the graces are supernatural and mystical - it seems everyone wants to focus on the scatological aspects of this…Whether “con” or “trans” - Christ’s presence is encountered in the Eucharist - just like eveytime when two are gathered in His name or when we call out “Lord, Lord” in true belief and repentance and in our moment of need.👍
 
I’ve heard them referred to as ‘accidents’. Which,I think is in reference to two things coming together to create an entirely new thing.🤷
No, I don’t think this is right.

The accidents is what the substance looks like. In transubstantiation, the accidents remain the same, while the substance transforms into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
 
Dissect him…?! Whether you are Lutheran (or some of the other protestant faiths) that believe in the Real Presence - albeit not like the Catholics who insist that the John 6 phrase is literal - participation in the Eucharist is expected and beneficial for the graces it gives…But the graces are supernatural and mystical - it seems everyone wants to focus on the scatological aspects of this…Whether “con” or “trans” - Christ’s presence is encountered in the Eucharist - just like eveytime when two are gathered in His name or when we call out “Lord, Lord” in true belief and repentance and in our moment of need.👍
This is wrong. It’s not “just like”. “When two are gathered in my name, I am there with them.”

When we partake in the Eucharist, we abide in Christ and He abides in us. In Him, not with Him.
 
I’ve heard them referred to as ‘accidents’. Which,I think is in reference to two things coming together to create an entirely new thing.🤷
If I may – in reference to the Catholic Eucharist, accidents refer to the appearances or signs of bread such as color, shape, taste. What happens at Consecration is that the substance of bread becomes the Real Presence of Jesus while the accidents of color, taste, etc. remain. This is why the Catholic Eucharist is never symbolic.

Blessings,
grannymh
 
In post #322 where I pasted the post from the other forum,the poster talks about the host becoming actual meat.Does anyone know of an instance in which this has occurred in their own parish?

(I lurk here a lot,…this is the first time I felt I had an actual contribution…)
 
If I may – in reference to the Catholic Eucharist, accidents refer to the appearances or signs of bread such as color, shape, taste. What happens at Consecration is that the substance of bread becomes the Real Presence of Jesus while the accidents of color, taste, etc. remain. This is why the Catholic Eucharist is never symbolic.

Blessings,
grannymh
Very well put. That is also why the properly conducted protestant Eucharist is never symbolic as well. Whether by “Real Presence” (catholic) or Real Presence (protestant) Christ abides in us and we in Him, as Not Worthy corrected me on…🙂
 
In post #322 where I pasted the post from the other forum,the poster talks about the host becoming actual meat.Does anyone know of an instance in which this has occurred in their own parish?

(I lurk here a lot,…this is the first time I felt I had an actual contribution…)
It is rather rare…

I would imagine no one on these threads has seen it.

But the results of at least one occurrence (back in the 7th or 8th century) are still present in Italy. I believe its call Lanciano and was linked just about 10 or so posts ago.
 
Very well put. That is also why the properly conducted protestant Eucharist is never symbolic as well. Whether by “Real Presence” (catholic) or Real Presence (protestant) Christ abides in us and we in Him, as Not Worthy corrected me on…🙂
The problem is “Real Presence” is totally different in the typical Protestant theology. It may sound like its an ecumenical theology, but its typically a refutation of the Catholic belief in Transubstantiation.

Dwight Longenecker has a real good article on it here.
 
It is rather rare…

I would imagine no one on these threads has seen it.

But the results of at least one occurrence (back in the 7th or 8th century) are still present in Italy. I believe its call Lanciano and was linked just about 10 or so posts ago.
I am very hesitant about youtube videos.But this one caught my attention.I am not going to claim that it’s not a fake.But,I can’t see anything that looks it is…
I’ve watched it many times.It feels real,…but,then again,…I suppose I may just want it to be.It’s a cool concept.Y’know?😊

youtube.com/watch?v=A5zsvHFDCs4
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top