The Eucharist - Real Presence or Symbolic?

[mercygate]

EA_Man:

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

Session 13, Chapter 4 of Trent says:

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

It is a little subtle but what it says is the Church has always believed that the consecrated elements are the Body and Blood of Christ, and that this conversion is “suitably and properly **called **Transubstantiation.”

It does not say that the Church has always called it Transubstantiation.

Trent is like that; you have to read carefully what the documents actually say.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Also Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

 

[mercygate]

6th Grade?!!?

Should I be insulted?

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

Peace

I knew that! The Sixth Grade Baltimore Catechism is excellent, But as I said, it’s half a mile above the heads of most Catholics in the pew today. Seriously.

 

[Mickey]

mercygate:

I knew that! The Sixth Grade Baltimore Catechism is excellent, But as I said, it’s half a mile above the heads of most Catholics in the pew today. Seriously.

And that is truly sad and disturbing. Well, Scripture does say the path is narrow, right?

 

[EA_Man]

mercygate:

Session 13, Chapter 4 of Trent says:

It is a little subtle but what it says is the Church has always believed that the consecrated elements are the Body and Blood of Christ, and that this conversion is “suitably and properly **called **Transubstantiation.”

It does not say that the Church has always called it Transubstantiation.

Trent is like that; you have to read carefully what the documents actually say.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to say that people in the Church “called it” Transubstantiation since the 1st century.

Peace

 

[mercygate]

EA_Man:

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to say that people in the Church “called it” Transubstantiation since the 1st century.

Peace

That’s what happens in interchanges like this. We state things in haste, and it is read as a misrepresentation. I had responded this from you:

"Trent decreeed that God’s Church has ALWAYS held to the definition of Transubstantiation set forth at Trent. "

G’day, Mate!:tiphat:

 

[O.S.Luke]

wcknight:

IF you want to go with the real deal, become Catholic. If you want to continue living a lie, stay protestant. It is no secret that the Catholic Church is where miracles abound. It was the case during Christ’s time, and it is still the case today.

wc

Is this what all Catholics believe? That being Protestant is living a lie?

Just curious.

O+

 

[O.S.Luke]

Mickey:

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!

That’s the best post I’ve seen here - bravo!

The coinage of Transubstantiation coincided with Aristotelianism and Thomism… before the time of the 10th-12th century, the coinage of necessary words and concepts simply wasn’t there.

I think the Church should have left well enough alone. The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. End of sentence. And if someone asks, “Is it really Christ’s body and blood?” we could have simply said, “Yes.”

Mysteries cannot be explained away. We Westerners would do well to take a lesson from the East on this: the EO’s rarely, if ever, mention the word “transubstantiation.” Do they believe in Real Presence? Yes! Do they feel a need to explain it in rationalistic and Thomistic terms? No.

You can’t explain mysteries… especially the Mystery.

O+

 

[iwonder]

mercygate:

I knew that! The Sixth Grade Baltimore Catechism is excellent, But as I said, it’s half a mile above the heads of most Catholics in the pew today. Seriously.

Ridiculous. I don’t know anyone, including my elementary school daughter and my high school son who have learned from anything else. Also, anyone actually using the Baltimore Catechism would immediately take themselves off to confession for making such a sarcastic statement about other Catholics.

 

[Mickey]

iwonder:

Ridiculous. I don’t know anyone, including my elementary school daughter and my high school son who have learned from anything else. Also, anyone actually using the Baltimore Catechism would immediately take themselves off to confession for making such a sarcastic statement about other Catholics.

I don’t think he was being sarcastic, iwonder. I think he is saying that since so many Catholics have been poorly catechised–or not catechised at all—that the sixth grade Baltimore Catechism would be over their heads.

 

[mercygate]

iwonder:

Ridiculous. I don’t know anyone, including my elementary school daughter and my high school son who have learned from anything else. Also, anyone actually using the Baltimore Catechism would immediately take themselves off to confession for making such a sarcastic statement about other Catholics.

Your children are both exceptional and fortunate to have the benefit of the *Baltimore Catechism. *

My comment was not the least sarcastic. You would not believe the level of catechesis prevalent in my parish. It’s not the kids who scare me, it’s the adults. But it would be unnecessarily detractive for me to provide an example of what is believed – or not believed – by some cradle Catholics in my parish. Fr. John Corapi says that he routinely encounters Catholics who cannot list the 10 Commandments, the seven sacraments, the gifts or fruits of the Holy Spirit . . .

 

[EA_Man]

mercygate:

Fr. John Corapi says that he routinely encounters Catholics who cannot list the 10 Commandments, the seven sacraments, the gifts or fruits of the Holy Spirit . . .

This has been my experience. In fact, except for the last year; it has been my only experience, and I was “raised Catholic”!

Peace

 

[FdeS2]

It is often true that Catholics of all ages are ignorant of their faith. I went to Catholic school for 13 years and met many people who, after all of that, barely knew the basics. I hope that we can develop more rigorous and complete catechetical instruction for Catholics of all ages! Who’s with me?

 

[GodBlessJoanie]

Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity… the Eucharist is MUCH more than just “the real Presence”.

Blessings,
Joanie

 

[O.S.Luke]

GodBlessJoanie:

Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity… the Eucharist is MUCH more than just “the real Presence”.

Blessings,
Joanie

Uh… if the Real Presence of Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist… that would be the body, blood, soul, and divinity (I’d also add humanity) of Christ, would it not?!?

O+

 

[catholickyle]

There’s a subtle meaning to the Eucharist, and the Catholic interpretation of this as being Christ’s literal body. The meaning is that this church alone has kept its lamp burning, waiting for the bridegroom’s return. The Catholics alone recognize that the Divine quite literally takes on flesh, and I think the Catholics alone, out of all Christendom, will recognize the Lord when He reappears as promised, in a physical body, as before, and with disciples, as before. You do not really eat the body of Jesus, for you are not cannibals! If Jesus reappears in a body, you are not going to say to Him, “Lord, sorry, we have been munching on your vitals.” No, the real meaning of the Eucharist is that you are expecting a physical return of the Lord, and will accept Him when He reappears.

In His Name,
Kyle

 

[E.E.N.S]

catholickyle:

There’s a subtle meaning to the Eucharist, and the Catholic interpretation of this as being Christ’s literal body. The meaning is that this church alone has kept its lamp burning, waiting for the bridegroom’s return. The Catholics alone recognize that the Divine quite literally takes on flesh, and I think the Catholics alone, out of all Christendom, will recognize the Lord when He reappears as promised, in a physical body, as before, and with disciples, as before. You do not really eat the body of Jesus, for you are not cannibals! If Jesus reappears in a body, you are not going to say to Him, “Lord, sorry, we have been munching on your vitals.” No, the real meaning of the Eucharist is that you are expecting a physical return of the Lord, and will accept Him when He reappears.

**1374 **The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a *substantial *presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”

**1336 **The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. “Will you also go away?”: the Lord’s question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has “the words of eternal life” and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.