The Eucharist - Real Presence or Symbolic?

[Fergal]

Two miracles take place at the moment of transubstantiation.

1. Bread and wine cease to exist and become the body, blood sould and divinity of Jesus Christ.
2. (The greater miracle) The body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ visibly remain veiled under the ***appearance ***of bread and wine.

 

[Fergal]

april_hosen:

But what about when Jesus referred to himself as water?

Ok April. Where did Jesus say He was water?

Please quote me chapter and verse.

 

[EA_Man]

Fergal:

Two miracles take place at the moment of transubstantiation.

1. Bread and wine cease to exist and become the body, blood sould and divinity of Jesus Christ.
2. (The greater miracle) The body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ visibly remain veiled under the ***appearance ***of bread and wine.

Where does the bread go?

Dr. Ludwig Ott says
“The Sacramental Accidents continue without a subject in which to inhere.”

Anyone care to explain what the good Doctor means by that?

Where did the substance of the bread go to?

Thanks

 

[On_my_way]

I’ve been wanting to stay off of this thread, but I can’t. I don’t know how many of the posters are Protestant, Catholic or other. I’ve seen some people state that the Eucharist is Symbolic and is not the Real Presence which make me believe that they are Protestant and some say it is literally the Body and Blood of Christ which would make me believe they are Catholic.

What gets me is that most Protestants forgot that Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Faith, affirmed the doctrine and the teachings of the early Church Fathers. Before the reformation all Christianty accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Even Churches who broke away before the reformation still believe in the Real Presence (Orthodox, Coptic and Armenian). Just because the Protestant teachings believe that it is Symbolic and not Real, it doesn’t mean a thing. For us Catholics we know better and we feel better when we acknowledge it and receive it at Mass. Some people will never understand because they are missled(sp) and should be saved.

 

[EA_Man]

Fergal:

Ok April. Where did Jesus say He was water?

Please quote me chapter and verse.

Aprill must mean either John 4 the Samiritan woman by the Well or Revelation 21 & 22.

Jesus doesn’t actually say He is water in any of these passages BUT He does say that HE gives both Living water (John 4) and the Water of Life (Rev. 21, 22).

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

On my way:

Just because the Protestant teachings believe that it is Symbolic and not Real, it doesn’t mean a thing. For us Catholics we know better and we feel better when we acknowledge it and receive it at Mass. Some people will never understand because they are missled(sp) and should be saved.

It sounds like you think Protestants are wrong.

Care to explain how you reached that position?

Thanks

 

[JimG]

EA_Man:

Dr. Ludwig Ott says
“The Sacramental Accidents continue without a subject in which to inhere.”

Anyone care to explain what the good Doctor means by that?

Where did the substance of the bread go to?

Thanks

What he means is this: The appearances (accidents) of bread and wine do not inhere in the substance of Jesus. That is, Jesus does not take on the appearances of bread and wine. The appearances remain, but they do not inhere in any subject.

The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the body and blood of Christ. “Substance” means the underlying reality of Jesus. Or the underlying reality of bread and wine, before the consecration.

Accidents are anything that is perceptible by the senses. Note that everything that we know comes through the senses. We only know underlying reality by the accidents. Normally, accidents correspond to the underlying reality. In transubstantiation, accidents remain,but the underlying reality is different.

Jesus’ body is not multiplied. He has but one body. We each receive the same Jesus. This is why St. Paul can say that because we all receive of the one loaf, we are one body.

(Neither is His body divided, by dividing the accidents of the bread or wine.)

Receiving the Eucharist puts us in contact with the one sacrifice which effected our salvation. By receiving the one Christ, we become united with one another.

Nobody ever said the Eucharist was an easy doctrine.

Even Jesus disciples said “This is a hard saying,” and he lost many because of it. He did not call them back.

 

[EA_Man]

JimG:

What he means is this: The appearances (accidents) of bread and wine do not inhere in the substance of Jesus. That is, Jesus does not take on the appearances of bread and wine. The appearances remain, but they do not inhere in any subject.

The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the body and blood of Christ. “Substance” means the underlying reality of Jesus. Or the underlying reality of bread and wine, before the consecration.

Actually Dr. Ott said that the “Sacremental Accidents continue without a subject in which to inhere.” So not only do they not inhere in Jesus, as you said. They also do not inhere ANYWHERE. So where has the substance gone to?

Has it gone to heaven? Where is the bread now that Jesus is the substance beneath the accidents?

JimG:

Accidents are anything that is perceptible by the senses. Note that everything that we know comes through the senses. We only know underlying reality by the accidents. Normally, accidents correspond to the underlying reality. In transubstantiation, accidents remain,but the underlying reality is different.

If we only know the underlying reality because of the accidents, then how do we know that Jesus is under the accidents of the bread? You have given me no way to determine that what you say is true.

JimG:

Jesus’ body is not multiplied. He has but one body. We each receive the same Jesus. This is why St. Paul can say that because we all receive of the one loaf, we are one body.

(Neither is His body divided, by dividing the accidents of the bread or wine.)

Receiving the Eucharist puts us in contact with the one sacrifice which effected our salvation. By receiving the one Christ, we become united with one another.

Many Protestants believe the exact same effect is achieved through either consubstantiation or even a ‘symbolic’ view of the elements because the ‘underlying reality’ in their view is spiritual rather than physical.

JimG:

Nobody ever said the Eucharist was an easy doctrine.

Even Jesus disciples said “This is a hard saying,” and he lost many because of it. He did not call them back.

True.

However, it is interesting that your interpretation of the ‘Eucharist’ in John 6 requires that Jesus expects those following Him to understand a ‘literal’ meaning regarding the Transubstantiation that had not literally taken place yet in the text. In other words, the Last Supper had not taken place. Jesus had not transformed His body and blood into the sacramental elements for the disciples to consume. But Jesus nevertheless expected His hearers to comprehend that they needed to believe what you have outlined above IN ADVANCE of the inaugural event. That is a very tall order, especially in light of the fact that the RCC does not expect its own adherents to comprehend this doctrine “in advance” as Jesus did. First Communion is preceded by some months worth of classes in preparation of receiving the Eucharist, is it not? Why?

Peace

 

[Fergal]

EA_Man:

Aprill must mean either John 4 the Samiritan woman by the Well or Revelation 21 & 22.

Jesus doesn’t actually say He is water in any of these passages BUT He does say that HE gives both Living water (John 4) and the Water of Life (Rev. 21, 22).

Peace

That is my point entirely. Jesus never said he was water.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Mickey:

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

You know… when I hear statements like this, I begin to believe that Catholics are about as “Anti-Protestant” as Catholics claim Protestants are “Anti-Catholic.”

Not all Protestants “dislike” hearing about mysteries. My own church (United Methodist) embraces mystery in the sacraments… in fact, the new doctrinal statement on the Eucharist is entitled, “This Holy Mystery.” Our church also embraces Real Presence (we are NOT a Zwinglian/Calvinist tradition).

It’s time that some charity prevail… and that you don’t paint all Protestants with the same wide brush - unless you feel “justified” by doing so…

O+

 

[Mickey]

EA_Man:

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.

Who taught you that this was metaphorical EA? It was never taught that way until some time after the reformation. Not even Martin Luther subscribed to that theology.

I really feel for you EA. I don’t say that to be condescending or uncharitable so please don’t take it that way. I know many fundamentalists who go to extraordinary lengths to justify a metaphorical understanding of the Eucharist. You see, they have no choice. If they believe otherwise, they must convert to Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc. (And this terrifies them). Many sayings in the Bible are hard sayings–and this is one of them.

My best friend was born and raised a baptist and he has been on a two year journey. He has been studying Church history and Tradition while reading and re-reading the Scriptures–always praying that the Holy Spirit may guide him to the truth. Today he is very close to conversion to Catholicism. And guess what the clincher was? You guessed it–the Holy Eucharist! He found no way around the words of Jesus: “For my Flesh is food indeed and my Blood is drink indeed”.

May your journey be peaceful and blessed EA!

God bless you.

 

[Mickey]

O.S. Luke:

You know… when I hear statements like this, I begin to believe that Catholics are about as “Anti-Protestant” as Catholics claim Protestants are “Anti-Catholic.”

Not all Protestants “dislike” hearing about mysteries. My own church (United Methodist) embraces mystery in the sacraments… in fact, the new doctrinal statement on the Eucharist is entitled, “This Holy Mystery.” Our church also embraces Real Presence (we are NOT a Zwinglian/Calvinist tradition).

It’s time that some charity prevail… and that you don’t paint all Protestants with the same wide brush - unless you feel “justified” by doing so…

O+

My apologies. I should have said: “many protestants”. Please forgive me. I am not anti-protestant.

 

[Mickey]

Indeed, transubstantiation is difficult for the natural mind (especially with its modern excessively skeptical bent) to grasp and clearly requires a great deal of faith. Yet many aspects of Christianity which conservative, evangelical, orthodox Christians have no difficulty believing transcend reason and must ultimately be accepted on faith, such as: the Incarnation (in which a helpless infant in Bethlehem is God!), the Resurrection, the omniscience of God, the paradox of grace versus free will, eternity, the Union of the Human and Divine Natures in Christ (the Hypostatic Union), the Fall of Man and original sin, and the Virgin Birth, among many other beliefs. Transubstantiation may be considered beyond reason, yet it is not opposed to reason; suprarational, but not irrational, much like Christian theology in general.

author unknown

 

[InnocentIII]

Erich:

Wow, you never hear about those kinds of exorcisms any more!

BTW, Lutherans would find fault with the first sentence of the above-referenced article… they did keep the form of the Mass, and they do believe in a real presence (though they don’t believe in transubstantiation).

As I understand it , though I am open to correction, the Lutehran doctrine is known as consubstantiation. Luther famously in his debate with Zwingli wrote Hoc est corpus meum on the table and refused to budge from that. However, the Lutheran doctrine does not create a permanent change in the bread and wine as the Church teaches. The body and blood of Christ are present with the bread and wine only for the duration of the mass - hence no reservation. It is in that sense a sophisticated version of the “spiritual” presence theory.

 

[Mickey]

If one accepts the fact that God became Man, then it cannot consistently be deemed impossible (as many casually assume) for Him to become truly and really present under the appearances of bread and wine. Jesus, after His Resurrection, could apparently walk through walls while remaining in His physical (glorified) body (John 20:26-27). How, then, can transubstantiation reasonably be regarded as intrinsically implausible by some Christians?

Likewise, much of the objection to this doctrine seems to arise out of a pitting of matter against spirit, or, more specifically, an a priori hostility to the idea that grace can be conveyed through matter. This is exceedingly curious, since precisely this notion is fundamental to the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus. If God did not take on matter and human flesh, no one would have been saved. Such a prejudice is neither logical (given belief in the miraculous and Christian precepts) nor Scriptural.

author unkown

 

[Mickey]

Merely Figurative?

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Catholic Answers

 

[Mickey]

InnocentIII:

As I understand it , though I am open to correction, the Lutehran doctrine is known as consubstantiation. Luther famously in his debate with Zwingli wrote Hoc est corpus meum on the table and refused to budge from that. However, the Lutheran doctrine does not create a permanent change in the bread and wine as the Church teaches. The body and blood of Christ are present with the bread and wine only for the duration of the mass - hence no reservation. It is in that sense a sophisticated version of the “spiritual” presence theory.

Yes, but it is not merely symbolic to the Lutheran.

 

[EA_Man]

Mickey:

Who taught you that this was metaphorical EA? It was never taught that way until some time after the reformation. Not even Martin Luther subscribed to that theology.

I know many fundamentalists who go to extraordinary lengths to justify a metaphorical understanding of the Eucharist. You see, they have no choice. If they believe otherwise, they must convert to Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc. (And this terrifies them). Many sayings in the Bible are hard sayings–and this is one of them.

What extraordinary lengths am I going to here? Asking what happens to the bread? Asking how Jesus could expect those that He was speaking to comprehend an event and miracle that He had yet to perform? Transubstantiation is a Catholic dogma, it is only fair to expect that the proponents of that dogma be able to explain it. I expect an explanation that is commensurate with the degree of certitude evinced by the holder of that belief. There is no lack of certainty that BOTH body and blood are present despite the fact that Jesus said that the bread was His body and the wine His blood. How has the RCC determined that bread and wine are both body and blood?

Apparently the “answer” that you have is “just believe”. I really don’t want to end up in front of Jesus someday saying “Hey, they told to me believe, so I did without questioning.”

If we were supposed to believe without questioning why bother documenting Jesus genealogy or His fulfillment of prophecy in Scripture to begin with?

Mickey:

God bless you.

Bless you too.

 

[sonseeker]

Symbolic

 

[Mickey]

EA_Man:

Apparently the “answer” that you have is “just believe”. I really don’t want to end up in front of Jesus someday saying “Hey, they told to me believe, so I did without questioning.”

Yes. All of history dating back to the earliest Christians says: “Just believe”! Transubstantiation was defined later in response to certain protestant attacks on “The Real Presence”. As an Eastern Catholic, I hold to the historic Orthodox understading of the “Real” or “True” Presence–and this is in line with Catholic teaching. It is a mystery that is to be “just believed” as the Scriptures indicate. I will not walk away like the disciples.

Jesus says, "This is my body… This is my blood.” Now, on Judgment Day, if I am wrong in taking those words literally, and Jesus rebukes me, “Why did you misunderstand my Supper?” I will be able to answer, “Lord, I was simply taking you at your Word.”

But if Jesus intended those words to be taken literally, and I have taken them figuratively, what will be my answer? All I could say would be, "I trusted my reason more than your words."

I would rather be rebuked for taking Jesus at His word, than for not doing so.

While this scenario is purely hypothetical, it serves to expose what those who question and deny the simple meaning of Jesus’ words are really doing.

Blessings,
Mickey