The Eucharist - Real Presence or Symbolic?

[mercygate]

ChristFollower:

I think the tradition of the Eucharist as held by the Catholic faith is fine, whether it’s real or not we aren’t saved by eating it - we are saved by His death on the cross and our faith in Him.

Salvation + Faith = Works

not

Works + Faith = Salvation

For a Catholic, of course, John 6 matters, and there is no “whether it’s real or not” for us. Since Jesus told us it is real, we accept it. We do not see the Cross as separated from the rest of the Gospel, nor do we believe that the Gospel can be fragmented. God is One. Christ is One. The Gospel is One.

For Catholics, the Mass *is *Calvary. Was Christ really present at Calvary? If yes, then he is really present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is the same event: not a repeated sacrifice, that very same sacrifice. Gives me goosebumps just to ponder that!

 

[E.E.N.S]

I think it also says something how all of Jesus followers left Him (except for the twelve apostles) after giving the bread of life discourse - they knew what He was saying, and so they left Him, never to follow Him again (John 6:66). Now Jesus could have said to them that they were taking Him literally, but that He meant it to be purely symbolic, however this was not the case, instead He turn to the twelve and asked them if they were to leave Him as well…

Also, if you read the writings of the early Christians, it’s plain to see that they believe 110% in the True Presence as well, and it follows suit through all of history as such.

 

[Peace-bwu]

]This is very interesting. So the bread that I think I see, smell, taste and touch really isn’t there and just the “accidents” remain? And Jesus who I do not apprehend as being “there” really is “there”?So where has the bread “gone to”?

where did the water go when Jesus changed the water to wine at the wedding of Cana? Where did the illnesses go when Jesus cured the ill?

There are several references to Eucharistic miracles on this thread. These also raise an interesting question; if the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the actual, though unseen, Body and Blood of Christ represent a ‘miracle’, how is it that the “Non-transubstantiation” of the bread and wine also represents a miracle as well?

I am not quite sure of what you are asking here… Do you think these miracles happened to bread and wine which has not yet been consecrated? Or do you mean that because the Eucharist did not keep it’s accidents (appearance of bread and wine) that it was not a valid consecration or transubstantiation?

This should be good.

It would be even better if the question made sense, could you be more clear (I’m not being sarcastic, so please don’t take it that way, I try not to fix sarcasm with sarcasm, I find it unproductive) clarify what you mean, so we can anwer you?

 

[johnpaullover]

One of the Protestant objections is that :bowdown: science :bowdown2: has disproven substance changing appearance same, but science has claimed to disprove other miracles. :bible1: :yawn:

 

[mercygate]

johnpaullover:

One of the Protestant objections is that :bowdown: science :bowdown2: has disproven substance changing appearance same, but science has claimed to disprove other miracles. :bible1: :yawn:

Technically, we do not refer to Transubstantiation as a “miracle” because it is imperceptible to the senses. “Science,” which deals with empirical evidence, could not “disprove” what is not claimed.

 

[JimG]

EA_Man:

This is very interesting. So the bread that I think I see, smell, taste and touch really isn’t there and just the “accidents” remain? And Jesus who I do not apprehend as being “there” really is “there”?

So where has the bread “gone to”?

There are several references to Eucharistic miracles on this thread. These also raise an interesting question; if the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the actual, though unseen, Body and Blood of Christ represent a ‘miracle’, how is it that the “Non-transubstantiation” of the bread and wine also represents a miracle as well?

This should be good.

Yes. Your fist paragraph states precisely what happens at the consecration. The bread (and wine) are gone, replaced by Jesus Christ. The accidents, or appearances, of bread and wine, remain, but do not inhere in any subject.

The underlying reality of the bread has been transformed into Jesus. That’s where is has “gone to.”

“Eucharistic miracles” are a separate matter, and obviously not what happens in the “ordinary” course of consecration. Eucharistic miracles are out of the ordinary events granted to a specific person for a specific purpose, usually having to do with the restoration of faith.

People often refer to transubstantiation as a “miracle,” but it really isn’t. A miracle is an occurence which is apparent to our senses. Transubstantiation is not.

 

[E.E.N.S]

JimG:

Yes. Your fist paragraph states precisely what happens at the consecration. The bread (and wine) are gone, replaced by Jesus Christ. The accidents, or appearances, of bread and wine, remain, but do not inhere in any subject.

The underlying reality of the bread has been transformed into Jesus. That’s where is has “gone to.”

“Eucharistic miracles” are a separate matter, and obviously not what happens in the “ordinary” course of consecration. Eucharistic miracles are out of the ordinary events granted to a specific person for a specific purpose, usually having to do with the restoration of faith.

People often refer to transubstantiation as a “miracle,” but it really isn’t. A miracle is an occurence which is apparent to our senses. Transubstantiation is not.

You mean transubstanciated.

 

[EA_Man]

Peace-bwu:

This should be good.

It would be even better if the question made sense, could you be more clear (I’m not being sarcastic, so please don’t take it that way, I try not to fix sarcasm with sarcasm, I find it unproductive) clarify what you mean, so we can anwer you?

Transubstantiation is not turning something into something else - it is one thing replaced by another with the ‘accidents’
of the "thing being replaced remaining’. Did Jesus say “OK here you go; wine - I know that it looks and tastes like water, but it really is wine.”? Your analogy doesn’t work.

If the bread is “no longer there”, where has it gone to?

 

[EA_Man]

mercygate:

Technically, we do not refer to Transubstantiation as a “miracle” because it is imperceptible to the senses. “Science,” which deals with empirical evidence, could not “disprove” what is not claimed.

Fair enough. But if it is imperceptible how do you know that it has occured at all?

Furthermore, for the purposes of this post I will stipulate that what you and the RCC claims actually does happen.

Christ has a corporeal body of given mass, if His body is actually (though imperceptibly) present in the Host (my understanding is that Christ is TOTALLY present - body, blood, soul, and divinity - not a piece of Christ, but Christ entirely). The implications of this spawn all sorts of questions.

1. Oftentimes more hosts are consecrated than consumed for a Mass - to bring later to the infirmed, bedridden,etc… some are also reserved in the ciborium of hundreds or thousands of churches for use at a moment’s notice. Since this is the case, is Christ seated at the right hand of the Father or in the cibora?
2. One would suppose that the number of consecrated hosts present on earth at one time either during the Mass or in the ciborium around the world would outweigh whatever Jesus’ earthly mass was. How can that be so?

2a) Given the number of consecrations going on at one time all around the earth, the number of participants in Communion, etc…doesn’t that necessitate that Jesus is always “in transit” between being seated on the Heavenly Throne and being PHYSICALLY present with the Communicant?

1. If each Eucharist is Christ in totality, then how can the Eucharistic ‘miracles’ of hosts made of ‘heart tissue’ be explained? The ‘miracle’ in this (these?) case(s) defies the explanations of the Extraordinary Magesterium which has decreed that the consecrated hosts are not ‘pieces’ of Jesus.
2. These incidents which purport to convey the ‘reality’ of these miracles because these hosts have been ‘analyzed’, further undermine the contention that we cannot ‘prove’ or 'disprove ’ Transubstantiation through analysis. In other words, the proponents of these miracles claim that I should believe in them because analysis that proves what they say has been performed, but then the Church claims that we cannot prove anything through analysis. Which is it?

Thanks

 

[Mickey]

EA_Man:

If the bread is “no longer there”, where has it gone to?

I know protestants dislike to hear this–but it is a mystery! The word sacrament means mystery. Jesus says: This is my body and this is my blood, and we believe Him! It does not matter that it still looks and tastes like bread and wine–we believe that it is the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. We take Jesus at His word!

After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ’s body, Christ went on to explain and to give them the whole Sacrament. He took and mixed a cup of wine. Then He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy, declaring that it was His own Blood, which was about to be poured out. …Christ commanded them to drink, and He explained to them that the cup which they were drinking was His own Blood: 'This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. Take, all of you, drink of this, because it is a new covenant in My Blood, As you have seen Me do, do you also in My memory. Whenever you are gathered together in My name in Churches everywhere, do what I have done, in memory of Me. Eat My Body, and drink My Blood, a covenant new and old."
St. Ephraim Of Syria

 

[mercygate]

EA_Man:

Fair enough. But if it is imperceptible how do you know that it has occured at all?

This is a mystery; by definition a mystery is something we cannot fully understand with our human mind. We know it has occurred because Jesus said: “This is my body” and he told us to “do this.”

Furthermore, for the purposes of this post I will stipulate that what you and the RCC claims actually does happen.

Christ has a corporeal body of given mass, if His body is actually (though imperceptibly) present in the Host (my understanding is that Christ is TOTALLY present - body, blood, soul, and divinity - not a piece of Christ, but Christ entirely). The implications of this spawn all sorts of questions.

Can we know that the Resurrection body – which we as Christians all believe IS a body – has mass as we understand it in our Newtonian world? The Resurrection body of the New Testament entered locked rooms and vanished from sight . . .

1. Oftentimes more hosts are consecrated than consumed for a Mass - to bring later to the infirmed, bedridden,etc… some are also reserved in the ciborium of hundreds or thousands of churches for use at a moment’s notice. Since this is the case, is Christ seated at the right hand of the Father or in the cibora?

Both. Christ is God. He is everywhere. His presence in the Blessed Sacrament is a mystery of divine love. It isn’t an either/or question. But he does assure us of his very particular presence in this Sacrament.

1. One would suppose that the number of consecrated hosts present on earth at one time either during the Mass or in the ciborium around the world would outweigh whatever Jesus’ earthly mass was. How can that be so?

See response to question one. The bread is no longer bread but the Body of Christ. So weighing up the wafers doesn’t apply.

2a) Given the number of consecrations going on at one time all around the earth, the number of participants in Communion, etc…doesn’t that necessitate that Jesus is always “in transit” between being seated on the Heavenly Throne and being PHYSICALLY present with the Communicant?

All these questions have the same answer.

1. If each Eucharist is Christ in totality, then how can the Eucharistic ‘miracles’ of hosts made of ‘heart tissue’ be explained? The ‘miracle’ in this (these?) case(s) defies the explanations of the Extraordinary Magesterium which has decreed that the consecrated hosts are not ‘pieces’ of Jesus.

I am not the person to answer this question because I find these miracles as puzzling (troubling?) as you do. That they do exist is absolutely certain. The only explanation I can come up with (and I believe it is the party line) is that these extraordinary things were particular to a specific devotional need – as in the case of the priest who had begun to doubt the real presence. The Church has never based her doctrine on this stuff – and aren’t we glad about THAT!

1. These incidents which purport to convey the ‘reality’ of these miracles because these hosts have been ‘analyzed’, further undermine the contention that we cannot ‘prove’ or 'disprove ’ Transubstantiation through analysis. In other words, the proponents of these miracles claim that I should believe in them because analysis that proves what they say has been performed, but then the Church claims that we cannot prove anything through analysis. Which is it?

Thanks

I think I answered that in 3. While I believe unreservedly in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist – and I believe that these exceptional miracles are also real – I, too, find that preoccupation with this sort of thing actually tends to undermine the full mystery and doctrine. Wanna know something really weird? In every instance of a verified miracle where Jesus’ blood has appeared, the type is AB negative.

 

[Mickey]

mercygate:

This is a mystery; by definition a mystery is something we cannot fully understand with our human mind. We know it has occurred because Jesus said: “This is my body” and he told us to “do this.”
Can we know that the Resurrection body – which we as Christians all believe IS a body – has mass as we understand it in our Newtonian world? The Resurrection body of the New Testament entered locked rooms and vanished from sight . . .

Both. Christ is God. He is everywhere. His presence in the Blessed Sacrament is a mystery of divine love. It isn’t an either/or question. But he does assure us of his very particular presence in this Sacrament.

See response to question one. The bread is no longer bread but the Body of Christ. So weighing up the wafers doesn’t apply.

All these questions have the same answer.

I am not the person to answer this question because I find these miracles as puzzling (troubling?) as you do. That they do exist is absolutely certain. The only explanation I can come up with (and I believe it is the party line) is that these extraordinary things were particular to a specific devotional need – as in the case of the priest who had begun to doubt the real presence. The Church has never based her doctrine on this stuff – and aren’t we glad about THAT!

I think I answered that in 3. While I believe unreservedly in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist – and I believe that these exceptional miracles are also real – I, too, find that preoccupation with this sort of thing actually tends to undermine the full mystery and doctrine. Wanna know something really weird? In every instance of a verified miracle where Jesus’ blood has appeared, the type is AB negative.

Thank you mercygate. You answered these questions about the same as I would have and saved me from metacarpal syndrome!

 

[Eden]

EA_Man:

Fair enough. But if it is imperceptible how do you know that it has occured at all?

Furthermore, for the purposes of this post I will stipulate that what you and the RCC claims actually does happen.

Christ has a corporeal body of given mass, if His body is actually (though imperceptibly) present in the Host (my understanding is that Christ is TOTALLY present - body, blood, soul, and divinity - not a piece of Christ, but Christ entirely). The implications of this spawn all sorts of questions.

1. Oftentimes more hosts are consecrated than consumed for a Mass - to bring later to the infirmed, bedridden,etc… some are also reserved in the ciborium of hundreds or thousands of churches for use at a moment’s notice. Since this is the case, is Christ seated at the right hand of the Father or in the cibora?
2. One would suppose that the number of consecrated hosts present on earth at one time either during the Mass or in the ciborium around the world would outweigh whatever Jesus’ earthly mass was. How can that be so?

2a) Given the number of consecrations going on at one time all around the earth, the number of participants in Communion, etc…doesn’t that necessitate that Jesus is always “in transit” between being seated on the Heavenly Throne and being PHYSICALLY present with the Communicant?

1. If each Eucharist is Christ in totality, then how can the Eucharistic ‘miracles’ of hosts made of ‘heart tissue’ be explained? The ‘miracle’ in this (these?) case(s) defies the explanations of the Extraordinary Magesterium which has decreed that the consecrated hosts are not ‘pieces’ of Jesus.
2. These incidents which purport to convey the ‘reality’ of these miracles because these hosts have been ‘analyzed’, further undermine the contention that we cannot ‘prove’ or 'disprove ’ Transubstantiation through analysis. In other words, the proponents of these miracles claim that I should believe in them because analysis that proves what they say has been performed, but then the Church claims that we cannot prove anything through analysis. Which is it?

Thanks

Don’t Protestants believe that Jesus is “in their hearts” when they accept Him as their Savior? How can He be in millions of hearts all around the world if He “is seated at the right hand of the Father”? How does He listen to millions of prayers all at once from all parts of the globe in thousands of different languages all at once. I can’t believe someone who has faith finds it difficult to have faith in transubstantiation.

 

[mercygate]

Mickey:

Thank you mercygate. You answered these questions about the same as I would have and saved me from metacarpal syndrome!

Thanks, Mickey. Coming from you, that kind of makes my day.

 

[ChristFollower]

Once you make the tradition a legalism, you take away from the cross, not honor it.

 

[Mickey]

ChristFollower:

Once you make the tradition a legalism, you take away from the cross, not honor it.

Huh? :ehh:

 

[EA_Man]

mercygate:

This is a mystery; by definition a mystery is something we cannot fully understand with our human mind. We know it has occurred because Jesus said: “This is my body” and he told us to “do this.”
Can we know that the Resurrection body – which we as Christians all believe IS a body – has mass as we understand it in our Newtonian world? The Resurrection body of the New Testament entered locked rooms and vanished from sight . . .

Both. Christ is God. He is everywhere. His presence in the Blessed Sacrament is a mystery of divine love. It isn’t an either/or question. But he does assure us of his very particular presence in this Sacrament.

I am not the person to answer this question because I find these miracles as puzzling (troubling?) as you do. That they do exist is absolutely certain. The only explanation I can come up with (and I believe it is the party line) is that these extraordinary things were particular to a specific devotional need – as in the case of the priest who had begun to doubt the real presence. The Church has never based her doctrine on this stuff – and aren’t we glad about THAT!

While I believe unreservedly in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist – and I believe that these exceptional miracles are also real – I, too, find that preoccupation with this sort of thing actually tends to undermine the full mystery and doctrine. Wanna know something really weird? In every instance of a verified miracle where Jesus’ blood has appeared, the type is AB negative.

Thanks for you responses - this is about what I expected - no offense.

First, I must accept this de fide.
Second, Jesus said this is my Body, which the RCC has declared to be a literal fulfillment of the literal meaning of Jesus’ words. That’s fair enough, BUT - Jesus also made the following statements, do you interpret these literally as well?

John 8:12: Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I AM the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” Is Jesus a big light?

John 10:9: “I AM the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.” Is Jesus made of wood?

John 15:1: "I AM the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
Is Jesus a plant?

As far as the nature of the body in the Newtonian world, two points;

1. The Catholic Church has made proclamations about the REAL PRESENCE of Christ in this Newtonian world.
2. You yourself referred to Eucharistic miracle blood types - a measurable attribute of the Newtonian world.

Therefore I would suggest that we either abandon Newtonian world measurements altogether or employ them consistently. I favor the latter rather than the former approach.

That being the case, if the wafers have now become the Body of Christ how is it that we cannot weigh them? Because the accidents (i.e. weight) of the bread are still present, correct? Then we can still weigh the accidents and determine the mass of the accidents, correct? So the bread which I think I see is not there (although the discernable attributes of what was there remain), and the Christ that I do not see is there? The substance of the bread is missing and the substance of Jesus has replaced it. This is all remarkable delineated for a process that cannot be detected nor verified!

…On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father… (The Apostles Creed)

…For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father…(The Nicene Creed)

“is seated” is present indicative tense. When we say the creeds we are saying that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father. We do not say that He is here, there, and everywhere. Additionally, what are we to make of Jesus’ words regarding the Holy Spirit: “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” - John 16:7

Jesus had to go away in order that He could send us the Holy Spirit. If He were physically with us every day through the Eucharist, why would have He sent the Holy Spirit whom He claimed that He could not send us UNLESS He went away?

Acts 1:11 - “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” (i.e. visibly / physically)

The angels speaking to the disciples at the Ascension certainly gave the impression that the resurrected body of Jesus would return to the Newtonian world and in a way detectable to the senses. It seems to me that the practical effect of Transubstantiation is that it refutes the testimony of the two angels in Acts 1:11 in that Jesus comes and goes all of the time but is never seen.

In order to make Transubstantiation fit we must read into a scripture the assumption that the angels were only speaking of the Second Coming and were leaving unspoken the promise that Jesus would physically return unseen billions and billions of times until then.

Peace

 

[Mickey]

EA_Man:

Thanks for you responses - this is about what I expected - no offense.

First, I must accept this de fide.
Second, Jesus said this is my Body, which the RCC has declared to be a literal fulfillment of the literal meaning of Jesus’ words. That’s fair enough, BUT - Jesus also made the following statements, do you interpret these literally as well?

John 8:12: Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I AM the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” Is Jesus a big light?

John 10:9: “I AM the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.” Is Jesus made of wood?

John 15:1: "I AM the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
Is Jesus a plant?

This is about what I expected also EA–no offense.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).
Catholic Answers

 

[EA_Man]

Eden:

Don’t Protestants believe that Jesus is “in their hearts” when they accept Him as their Savior?

Yes

Eden:

How can He be in millions of hearts all around the world if He “is seated at the right hand of the Father”?

He can be there spiritually. But if Jesus has a PHYSICAL body, which He must have unless you want to delve into Gnosticism, then please demonstrate WHERE in Scripture His Resurrected body was documented to have been in multiple places at once. Using the example of entering into a locked room doesn’t get you there. That is a different ability. If you want to use the catch-all claim that “God can do anything” - I would have to agree, but only to the point in general, bearing in mind that anyone can then make any claim about any activity or attribute that they want to ascribe to God.

Eden:

How does He listen to millions of prayers all at once from all parts of the globe in thousands of different languages all at once?

This claim at least has a basis in scripture. It is true that the mechanism itself is not disclosed, but the fact that it happens is attested to. Where is perpetual Transubstantiation referred to in Scripture?

Eden:

I can’t believe someone who has faith finds it difficult to have faith in transubstantiation.

This is tantamount to making the claim that God can do anything so believe that He does it the way that we say. Big deal - I can hardly throw a rock without hitting a denomination’s headquarters that uses the same type of reasoning.

What I don’t understand is why the RCC changed the LITERAL formula of Jesus Christ Himself. Why didn’t they adhere to Jesus’ literal teaching? I see uncounted references on these threads to John 6:35-69 and lots of genuine concern and questioning as to why ‘Protestants’ don’t understand Jesus’ ‘literal’ meaning about His being the Bread of Life.

Look at what Jesus says about the Sacremental Elements versus what the Church teaches about them.

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Q: What does Jesus say is His body? A: The bread

Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Q: What does Jesus say is His blood? A: The wine.

What does the RCC say? It says that BOTH the bread and the wine are BOTH the body and blood (and soul and divinity) of Jesus Christ.

Where in Scripture does it say that BOTH substances contain ALL of Jesus Christ?

Why should I believe (de fide) what the RCC teaches about the elements of commmunion when I can read that what Jesus says about them is different?

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

Mickey:

This is about what I expected also EA–no offense.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).
Catholic Answers

Indeed you are correct in as much as John 10:9 & John 15:1 are metaphorical. However, I believe that Jesus speaking after the Feeding of the Five Thousand was also speaking metaphorically to those following Him. In essence He says; “Oh it’s bread that you want is it? Here’s the Bread of Life - Me! You must take and eat all of Me.” This is a metaphor meaning that you must accept all of who Jesus is, all of His teachings, His claims, etc… and make them part of you. The fact that many were following Jesus because they expected Him to perform more miracles or perhaps as Judas did; to set up an earthly kingdom right away makes their misunderstanding all the more understandable. Who left?
Those that did not believe. To whom does Jesus explain parables and other figurative statements? Believers. Even the disciples did not understand what Jesus meant! But they believed.

Peace