The Eucharist - Real Presence or Symbolic?

[E.E.N.S]

sonseeker:

Your god contradicts himself, …

Yikes! That’s a pretty bold (dangerous) statement! You might want to be careful with your words…you might be offending Somebody.

 

[EA_Man]

mercygate:

Got created this Newtonian world but is not bound by it. He is not bound by matter, time, or space. His relationship to us who dwell in matter, time, and space is a function of his love.
Does God really have body parts – a “right hand?” Does God come and go as men come and go? He may appear to do so (as in Eden) but is he *limited *to doing so? Is he circumscribed by his own creation or even by himself?

EA – not being difficult here, but are perichoresis and divine circumincession terms that have crossed your prow? They refer to the fact that the persons of the Holy Trinity are never absent from one another. Where the Father is, there is the Son, where the Son is, there is the Holy Spirit. Coming and going are metaphors for God’s action *towards us. *They do not describe the peregrinations of God himself because everything subsists in him. Nothing is ever not in him. Everything is always present to him.

Christ’s ascension and second coming certainly were and will be for us what Scripture says, but surely – surely – what we know of Christ’s Resurrection Body leads us to understand that the language of “place” is an accommodation to human nature, not to the divine nature.

Jesus physically returned unseen when he surprised the disciples by entering the locked room, then appearing in the midst of them with the words, “Peace be with you.” He was physically with the disciples on the road to Emmaus – and just as abruptly “unseen.” As for being present to us in many places, Jesus did say: “I am with you always.” One way he is ‘with us’ is in the Blessed Sacrament, the sign of union with him through his Body, the Church. Why should it be more odd that Jesus be present in the Blessed Sacrament than that he be present in our hearts?

By your reasoning God is in the host as the Son prior to consecration as well as after. So where is the transformation?

The RCC claims that the priest consecrates bread, petitioning Christ to descend from the Heavenly Throne and replace the substance of the bread with His Real Presence. This is the RCC’s dogma, not mine. The RCC has cast this dogma into the parlance of locations, not me.

You asked me if God was limited to do things in a certain way in support of your position. In other words, what prevents God from taking the place of the substance of bread during the Mass? The answer, of course, is nothing.

However, the Protestant believing in consubstantiation can now fairly ask; “What prevents God from joining Himself to the element of bread spiritually so that we may have communion with Him in that way?”

Peace

 

[Mickey]

EA_Man:

However, the Protestant believing in consubstantiation can now fairly ask; “What prevents God from joining Himself to the element of bread spiritually so that we may have communion with Him in that way?”

So you believe in consubstantiation?

 

[mercygate]

EA_Man:

By your reasoning God is in the host as the Son prior to consecration as well as after. So where is the transformation?

No. I don’t believe that is what necessarily follows from what I said. But I admit that this is difficult and I am not Thomas Aquinas, so am entirely capable of misrepresenting the case.

The RCC claims that the priest consecrates bread, petitioning Christ to descend from the Heavenly Throne and replace the substance of the bread with His Real Presence. This is the RCC’s dogma, not mine. The RCC has cast this dogma into the parlance of locations, not me.

Right. But you seem unwilling to entertain the idea of a Christ who is comprehensible as other than purely anthropomorphic (to include the astute correction given me by Sonseeker).

You asked me if God was limited to do things in a certain way in support of your position. In other words, what prevents God from taking the place of the substance of bread during the Mass? The answer, of course, is nothing.

Yay!

However, the Protestant believing in consubstantiation can now fairly ask; “What prevents God from joining Himself to the element of bread spiritually so that we may have communion with Him in that way?”

Peace

Only the words of Jesus.

I get cautious around the word “spiritually.” It means different things to different people. For a lot of people – especially certain kinds of secular Protestants – it tends to mean “not real,” even “imaginary.” But God is spirit, and God is certainly real. The Resurrection Body was/is real – solid enough to touch and handle, while at the same time passing through locked doors . . . So in one sense, a Catholic can call the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist a “spiritual” presence while still maintaining that it is “physical” because it is the Resurrected Lord who is present there. “It is the spirit that gives life.” For a Catholic the word “spiritual” does not, and cannot mean “merely symbolic.” God is pure Act. We believe that he acts through his words in the Sacraments of his Church.

 

[EA_Man]

Mickey:

The evidence for belief in “The Real Presence” amongst the Church Fathers is overwhelming. If you can not accept the words of Christ Himself, it is not going to benefit you much by studying the writings of one Church Father, whom you interpret to support your 16th century doctrine of symbolism.

He is not the only ECF that held a position inconsistent with Transubstantiation. Justin Martyr held a position that the Eucharist is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and not of propitiation.

I’ll support the doctrine of symbolism with writings from the ECF and you can defend the doctrine of Transubstantiation with writings from other ECF. But how could we do that unless they held different positions?

Peace

 

[Church_Militant]

E.E.N.S.:

After the “Please do!”, I take it you are no longer referring to me, right?

I’m sorry E.E.N.S. I should have made the change more obvious. Musta suffered some drain bamage.
Pax tecum,

 

[E.E.N.S]

Church Militant:

I’m sorry E.E.N.S. I should have made the change more obvious. Musta suffered some drain bamage.
Pax tecum,

Oh, that’s okay! It was bugging me for the last few hours though! lol

 

[Fiat]

EA_Man:

He is not the only ECF that held a position inconsistent with Transubstantiation. Justin Martyr held a position that the Eucharist is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and not of propitiation.

I’ll support the doctrine of symbolism with writings from the ECF and you can defend the doctrine of Transubstantiation with writings from other ECF. But how could we do that unless they held different positions?

Peace

Dear EA_Man:

I mean no disrespect here, but I’m not sure you can effectively say that there are ECFs with views that are contrary to transubstantiation when you have not really demonstrated that you know what transubstantiation is or what the Church teaches by it. In a previous post you indicated that during the consecration, the priest calls down Christ from heaven, but this is not what St. Thomas Aquinas describes.

[By the way, I’ll be the first to admit that my understanding of transubstantiation is not all that impressive either.]

Fiat

 

[Mickey]

EA_Man:

He is not the only ECF that held a position inconsistent with Transubstantiation. Justin Martyr held a position that the Eucharist is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and not of propitiation.

I’ll support the doctrine of symbolism with writings from the ECF and you can defend the doctrine of Transubstantiation with writings from other ECF. But how could we do that unless they held different positions?

I agree. That’s a daunting task for you!

First of all, you must look at **all **the Church Fathers and you will see what the vast majority believed. (it can also be shown that those that you think taught otherwise, in fact did adhere to the Orthodox understanding of the Real Presence). Secondly, you must study all the Church Fathers writings in context to gain a proper understanding of the doctrine.

Justin Martyr

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.* (First Apology 66 A.D. 151]).

 

[EA_Man]

mercygate:

Only the words of Jesus.

The Protestant again replies the same way.

Jesus had just returned from the Feeding of the Five Thousand with followers that wanted to see a sign. Our fathers were given manna in the desert, what will you give us?, they said. I will give you the bread of Everlasting Life - ME.

We (you and I) agree that Jesus said words to this effect, we disagree on what Jesus meant by them. I say that He was speaking figuratively. He meant that we need to consume all of who He is, feed on His word for nourishment and growth. You say that He was presenting Himself to us as literal food so that we can have intimacy and communion through a physical act. Pardon me if I don’t get all of the nuances right - I’m using “shorthand”.

We (Catholics and Protestants) have been arguing about this for 500 years. It doesn’t look like you and I are going to achieve much more than understanding on this.

May the Peace of Jesus Christ be with you always

 

[EA_Man]

Mickey:

I agree. That’s a daunting task for you!

First of all, you must look at **all **the Church Fathers and you will see what the vast majority believed. (it can also be shown that those that you think taught otherwise, in fact did adhere to the Orthodox understanding of the Real Presence). Secondly, you must study all the Church Fathers writings in context to gain a proper understanding of the doctrine.

Justin Martyr

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.* (First Apology 66 A.D. 151]).

Peace to you, Mickey.

You’re advice to read all of the ECF to determine the majority is good advice. But, correct me if I’m wrong, Trent decreeed that God’s Church has ALWAYS held to the definition of Transubstantiation set forth at Trent. It would seem to me that a simple majority opinion is INSUFFICIENT in order to conform with the pronouncements of an Infallible Magesterial Council.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

EA_Man:

He meant that we need to consume all of who He is, feed on His word for nourishment and growth.

Jesus is The Word made flesh…and so yes…we feed on The Word!

EA_Man:

We (Catholics and Protestants) have been arguing about this for 500 years.

But their was no argument for the first 1500!

 

[EA_Man]

Fiat:

Dear EA_Man:

I mean no disrespect here, but I’m not sure you can effectively say that there are ECFs with views that are contrary to transubstantiation when you have not really demonstrated that you know what transubstantiation is or what the Church teaches by it. In a previous post you indicated that during the consecration, the priest calls down Christ from heaven, but this is not what St. Thomas Aquinas describes.

[By the way, I’ll be the first to admit that my understanding of transubstantiation is not all that impressive either.]

Fiat

Dear Fiat,

I’ll have to look for the citation. I thought it was from the Baltimore Catechism(?!?) with the “Nihil Obstat Imprimatur”. Whether or not it “jibes” with Acquinas…?

I’ll have to get back you later on that.

God Bless

 

[mercygate]

EA_Man:

Peace to you, Mickey.

You’re advice to read all of the ECF to determine the majority is good advice. But, correct me if I’m wrong, Trent decreeed that God’s Church has ALWAYS held to the definition of Transubstantiation set forth at Trent. It would seem to me that a simple majority opinion is INSUFFICIENT in order to conform with the pronouncements of an Infallible Magesterial Council.

Blessings

I’m confused. While the Church has always believed in the real presence, the refinements of the doctrine of Transubstantiation – indeed, the word itself – were only promulgated at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.

You are correct. Majority opinion does not trump an Ecumenical Council. And aren’t we glad about that! If it did, we would all be Arians.

 

[EA_Man]

Mickey:

But their was no argument for the first 1500!

There was plenty of disagreement on a host of topics (pardon the pun). And it wasn’t always handled in the brotherly manner that you are exhibiting. But that’s for other threads

Peace

 

[mercygate]

EA_Man:

Dear Fiat,

I’ll have to look for the citation. I thought it was from the Baltimore Catechism(?!?) with the “Nihil Obstat Imprimatur”. Whether or not it “jibes” with Acquinas…?

I’ll have to get back you later on that.

God Bless

Whoa! EA! Reading the Baltimore Catechism? Cool! Yes. It “jibes with Aquinas.”

The senior high edition is actually quite sophisticated. It was produced on several levels, so maybe the 6th grade edition wouldn’t be quite up to your level. Sadly, most Catholics today couldn’t pass a test on it!

I can hardly wait for you to come on over to this side of the Tiber – you’re going to be a formidable warrior for the Lord! He’s got you in his crosshairs.

 

[EA_Man]

mercygate:

I’m confused. While the Church has always believed in the real presence, the refinements of the doctrine of Transubstantiation – indeed, the word itself – were only promulgated at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.

You are correct. Majority opinion does not trump an Ecumenical Council. And aren’t we glad about that! If it did, we would all be Arians.

It will depend on how “Real Presence” is defined. While I can agree that “the Church” has always believed in a form of the Real Presence. I would take issue with Trent’s claim that that belief was what was defined at Trent.

But I’m sure you suspected that.

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

mercygate:

Whoa! EA! Reading the Baltimore Catechism? Cool! Yes. It “jibes with Aquinas.”

The senior high edition is actually quite sophisticated. It was produced on several levels, so maybe the 6th grade edition wouldn’t be quite up to your level. Sadly, most Catholics today couldn’t pass a test on it!

I can hardly wait for you to come on over to this side of the Tiber – you’re going to be a formidable warrior for the Lord! He’s got you in his crosshairs.

6th Grade?!!?

Should I be insulted?

In case the icon doesn’t convey it - I’m not really insulted.

Peace

 

[Mickey]

EA_Man:

Peace to you, Mickey.

You’re advice to read all of the ECF to determine the majority is good advice. But, correct me if I’m wrong, Trent decreeed that God’s Church has ALWAYS held to the definition of Transubstantiation set forth at Trent. It would seem to me that a simple majority opinion is INSUFFICIENT in order to conform with the pronouncements of an Infallible Magesterial Council.

Blessings

The Magisterium includes the contributions of the Church Fathers. It’s called the deposit of faith. Remember the actual word, “Transubstantiation” was to assist definition of a Divine Mystery. You want my opinion? I don’t think they needed to define it. As a Byzantine Catholic, I use the term “Real Presence” or “True Presence” (same as the Orthodox). And that’s okay with Rome! You see the word “Transubstantiation” was coined in response to protestant attacks. (somewhat like we encounter on this forum). Unfortunately, that word opened the Catholic Church up for even more viscious attacks. Attempting to define a Divine Mystery is not an easy task. But I think the meaning is quite clear when looking at the entirety of Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition.

Peace!

 

[Delgadoajj]

Definitely Real.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

Jorge.