The Eucharist,transubstatiation,belief and miracles

[Maccabees]

dennisknapp:

While it is true that the term transubstantiation was not defined until well into the medieval period a case cannot be made for a soley symbolic view of the Eucharist prior to the middle 16th century. Not even Luther or Calvin, for that matter, held to a soley symbolic view (while not holding to the official Churches teaching that came to be called transubstantiation).

Doctrines do develope over time as the Body of Christ (His Church) reflects upon the meaning and purpose of the deposit of Faith. It has been my contention with Michael that what he would accept as proper doctrinal development is in fact doctrinal negation. For it stands against that which came before it.

I hope this gets us started Lisa.

I will do some research on Eucharistic miracles but I am more of the philosophy and theology guy, but I love to do research.

Peace

Actually Calvin’s view that the eucharist was merely a dynamic presnece of christ but contained neither the body or blood of Christ was a signficant innovation of protestantism. No trinitarian christian before this time had coined such an innovation.
All the church fathers pointed to the eucharist being the body and blood of christ no one denied this. Some may take out of context some referecnes to these being real symbols of christ but those same fathers elsewhere testify to the eucharist being the body and blood of christ. Actually Catholcism teaches the eucharist is the body and blood of christ and real symbols of his sacrifice. Clavin’s theory christ without his body and blood and Zwingli’s symbolic view Are innovations of the reformation.

 

[dennisknapp]

Maccabees:

Actually Calvin’s view that the eucharist was merely a dynamic presnece of christ but contained neither the body or blood of Christ was a signficant innovation of protestantism. No trinitarian christian before this time had coined such an innovation.
All the church fathers pointed to the eucharist being the body and blood of christ no one denied this. Some may take out of context some referecnes to these being real symbols of christ but those same fathers elsewhere testify to the eucharist being the body and blood of christ. Actually Catholcism teaches the eucharist is the body and blood of christ and real symbols of his sacrifice. Clavin’s theory christ without his body and blood and Zwingli’s symbolic view Are innovations of the reformation.

Thank you!

 

[Reformed_Rob]

St. Augustine, Tractate # 27
Homilies on the Gospel of John

5.** What is it, then, that He adds? “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing**.” Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), **O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, whilst Thou hast said, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him?”**Wherefore it is said that “the flesh profiteth nothing,” in the same manner as it is said that “knowledge puffeth up.” Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means “Knowledge puffeth up”? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, "but charity edifieth."4 Therefore add thou to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, “the flesh profiteth nothing,” only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profiteth very much. Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Thy flesh? Then what means “the flesh profiteth nothing”? It profiteth nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. **For if the flesh profiled nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us.

---

**There is more to the Eucharist than just partaking of the Body of Christ. I know that sounds odd. But like other Fathers, Augustine, spoke of other aspects of the Eucharist. Obviously, partaking of Christ is paramount, but there’s also the unity of the Church, the trusting in the Incarnation, the abiding in Him, all that is part of the Eucharist.

Just because they don’t write treatises on transubstantiation everytime the mention the eucharist doesn’t mean they doubt the change in the elements.

**

**

 

[dennisknapp]

St. Augustine, Tractate # 27
Homilies on the Gospel of John

5.** What is it, then, that He adds? “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing**.” Let us say to Him (for He permits us, not contradicting Him, but desiring to know), **O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, whilst Thou hast said, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him?”**Wherefore it is said that “the flesh profiteth nothing,” in the same manner as it is said that “knowledge puffeth up.” Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! And what means “Knowledge puffeth up”? Knowledge alone, without charity. Therefore he added, "but charity edifieth."4 Therefore add thou to knowledge charity, and knowledge will be profitable, not by itself, but through charity. So also here, “the flesh profiteth nothing,” only when alone. Let the Spirit be added to the flesh, as charity is added to knowledge, and it profiteth very much. Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Thy flesh? Then what means “the flesh profiteth nothing”? It profiteth nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. For if the flesh profiled nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to dwell among us.

---

****There is more to the Eucharist than just partaking of the Body of Christ. I know that sounds odd. But like other Fathers, Augustine, spoke of other aspects of the Eucharist. Obviously, partaking of Christ is paramount, but there’s also the unity of the Church, the trusting in the Incarnation, the abiding in Him, all that is part of the Eucharist.

Just because they don’t write treatises on transubstantiation everytime the mention the eucharist doesn’t mean they doubt the change in the elements.

What is you position on this topic, Reformed Rob? Are you Roman Catholic?

 

[Maccabees]

True in our emphasis on the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist we tend to overlook other spirutal aspects of the communion. The catholic view of the eucharist is quite detailed its spelled out better in the cathechism better than I do it justice but it spells out a several layers of this most mysterious sacrament.

The problem might be that we live in protestant dominated religious landscape and any statemetn by the church of a church father that does not spell out the primary beleif in the sacrament we might overlook or misinterpret as conflicting with the primary belief behind the sacrament but like many other things in catholcism it is “both” -“and” and there multiple interpretations to the John 6 text that are vlaid although the primary meaning is the literal one that we do defend on a regular basis.

 

[Pax]

Lisa,

You sure know how to start a fire between the debate crowd. You go girl

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Pax:

Lisa,

You sure know how to start a fire between the debate crowd. You go girl

Who Me? God Bless Pax and go get Michaelp:yup: Bring him here too,tell him the serious debates must be ressurected for the good of the forum:clapping:

 

[Curious]

In the ‘Surprised by Truth’ book I’m reading now, one of the converts talks about how the Catholic Church will take Bible verses at face value, unlike Protestants, who claim to take verses at face value, but really twist them around and make them say what they want said.
Included in this face value interpretation is the Eucharist. Let me quote this passage here.

There are many examples of passages that, when interpretated at face value, are easily understood and are harmonious with the rest of Scripture. In **John 3:5 **the word “water” is the clause, unless a man is born of water and Spirit refers to water baptism, at which time the Spirit enters are life and our sins are forgiven. (Protestant interpretations of this verse are quite diverse and self-serving. Most do their best to spiritualize the water into being a metaphor for the word of God)…

He includes other verses, including John 6, and the one where Jesus said, “whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven…”

Now my question is, if the Eucharist verses, and baptism verses and works verses and forgiveness verses are interpreted at face value, then what happens to this one?

MATTHEW 5:29-30
29 If you right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you, for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you, for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Now before you start screaming that I pulled this out of context - Jesus was talking about adultery here, starting from verse 27. Then on down to verse 31 he begins talking about divorce - forbidding divorce, a commandment the Catholic Church follows strictly. This is the context. Why are we not all plucking out eyes and cutting off hands? I mean, if the other verses get to be interpretated at face value, why not this one?

I tried to think of why not, and the only reason I could come up with is that Jewish law prohibited the mutilating of oneself.

 

[Pax]

Curious,

The term “face value” does not mean ignoring the context, linguistics, Jewish culture, or the intent of the author. Jesus frequently spoke using hyperbole when he was emphasizing a point about sin. In the quote from Matthew, Jesus makes it clear that it is better to be in heaven without an eye or hand than to have your whole body thrown into hell. Everyone can get behind this image and appreciate what the Lord is conveying. Jesus is not suggesting that you literally cut off your hand and here’s why. First of all everyone of us would probably be cutting parts off and out of our bodies if this were the case. Please notice that this has never been a Christian tradition or practice. Tradition teaches us and protects us from making an erroneous interpretation of this verse and then misapplying it to the destruction and mutilation of our bodies.

Moreover, there is another point of logic to this. Scripture teaches us that at the end of time we will all have glorified and resurrected bodies. Scripture never suggests that we ill be without parts of our bodies. We will be whole and we will be wholly glorified or we will be whole and we will be eternally damned.

When Jesus speaks, He uses many common forms and uses of language and does not confine himself to an academic instructive approach to speach. Instead, Jesus uses all of the tools of language to make His points. One of the things that happens is that culturally and religiously things would be understood easily by His Jewish contemporaries but might require a little more thought and analysis by later readers of the bible. The bible is best understood in its home environment. That environment is the Catholic Church. Through the constant teaching and traditions of the Church[forward from Pentecost] the proper understandings of scripture are preserved.

I believe that your understanding of the term “face value” is confused. The first meaning of scripture is the “literal” meaning. This does not mean “literalist.” Literal means the intent that the author means to convey. Literalist means that the words mean the “exact” thing that they are saying. If we use the term “really cool” in our everyday vernacular we can mean that something was “really hot.” This is not a contradiction. Instead both phrases convey the idea that we thought something was good. Either term describes it, but neither term describes it in a literalist fashion. The nice car that we might have been describing could well be at room temperature and neither cool or hot in a literal sense.

I hope this helps.

 

[Curious]

Pax,

Thanks for the attempt. I doesn’t help, but thanks anyway.
It didn’t quite answer the question. The question is, are those other verses taken to mean what they say and this one isn’t?
So all those other verses mean what they say, but this one doesn’t?
All those other verses mean what they say but for this one, we suddenly have to be very careful to keep it context and interpret it another way?

Maybe you answered me well and I just didn’t get it, but I still don’t understand.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Curious:

Pax,

Thanks for the attempt. I doesn’t help, but thanks anyway.
It didn’t quite answer the question. The question is, are those other verses taken to mean what they say and this one isn’t?
So all those other verses mean what they say, but this one doesn’t?
All those other verses mean what they say but for this one, we suddenly have to be very careful to keep it context and interpret it another way?

Well Pax, here’s some “literal” verses for you to ponder:

I Corinthians 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rockwhich followed them; and the **rock was Christ.
**
Did the rock’s substance change into the flesh and blood of Christ, but retain the look/feel/etc. of a rock?

Genesis 17:9,10
God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. **This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you; every male among you shall be circumcised. **

Ok, you might be tempted to think literally, that circumcision is the covenant. But wait, read on:

Genesis 17:11
And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and** it shall be the sign of the covenant** between Me and you."

So, why should we think that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ? We have elsewhere in Scripture that the “thing” is signified to represent (ie. the covenant), or be a sign of the “thing” without actually being that actual thing.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Reformed Rob:

Well Pax, here’s some “literal” verses for you to ponder:

I Corinthians 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rockwhich followed them; and the rock was Christ.

Did the rock’s substance change into the flesh and blood of Christ, but retain the look/feel/etc. of a rock?

Genesis 17:9,10
God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. **This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you; every male among you shall be circumcised. **

Ok, you might be tempted to think literally, that circumcision is the covenant. But wait, read on:

Genesis 17:11
And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and** it shall be the sign of the covenant** between Me and you."

So, why should we think that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ? We have elsewhere in Scripture that the “thing” is signified to represent (ie. the covenant), or be a sign of the “thing” without actually being that actual thing.

Because it is true.God would have decieved the people who walked away,who obviously was not thinking about it on a symbolic level.Not to mention the Eucharistic Miracles that have taken place throughout history.There is a book called Eucharistic Miracles you can get at a Catholic bookstore God Bless
PS Out of mere curiousity why do you use the St.Francis De Sales quote on your signature?

 

[Pax]

There are several threads on the forum where the issue of the Eucharist has been discussed and debated. Rather than presenting the same evidence over again, let me suggest that you review the threads.

I stand upon my previous post; if it didn’t help I can only apologize for not having the gift to provide you with more.

I will, however, give you a few things to think about from John chapter six that have been presented as evidence in the other threads. Jesus is not speaking figuratively about His flesh and blood and here’s why. First of all the intent of our Savior is clear and his Jewish disciples knew what He said and what He meant. They couldn’t handle the truth of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and they therefore left. If this was merely a misunderstanding Jesus would have explained it to them. Jesus would not confuse His followers by letting them have a misunderstanding. Instead Jesus reiterates His statement about His flesh and blood at least four times in four different ways. Jesus says, that the flesh and blood that He will give for us to eat and drink is the same flesh that will be offered up on the cross[John 6:51]

If the flesh and blood that Jesus is going to give us to eat and drink is merely symbolic than so is His flesh and blood that is offered upon the cross. Jesus also uses two different Greek words when speaking of eating his flesh and blood. He begins with “phago” which is a generic term meaning “to eat.” After the disciples murmur Jesus switches to “trogo” which is an even strong term meaning to eat. Trogo literally means “to gnaw, and to crunch.” In using this terminology Jesus removes all doubt about what He means, and he shows the physical reality of what He is promising. It is after this that many of the disciples left Jesus and would no longer walk with Him.

Jesus compares His promise of the Eucharist to two other biblical miracles and makes it clear that what He is talking about is greater than either of them. The first miracle is that of the manna in the desert. The manna is a physical thing and is a foreshadowing to the promise of the Eucharist. The second is the Ascension of Jesus into heaven which is also a physical thing. This is seen in verse 62 where it says, “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” Obviously, what Jesus is promising is greater than either of these two miracles. On the heels of verse 62, Jesus says “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him." Some people try to argue that this reference to the “flesh” and the “spirit” means that Jesus was only speaking symbolically.

Nothing could be farther from the biblical meaning of the terms. First of all the flesh means “human effort” and the spirit means by grace and the Holy Spirt. Nothing can be accomplished including believing what He had said by the flesh. The spirit doesn’t mean symbolic. Nowhere in scripture is spirit used to mean symbolic. In scripture when God speaks of the spirit it is a powerful reality. If you doubt this, then go to Genesis 1:2-3 and read where it says, "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; **and the Spirit of God ** was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

When God says something it happens. God’s word goes out in power and prospers in that which He sent it[Isaiah 55:11]. When God sent His word it became flesh. When Jesus says He will give us His body and blood as true food and true drink, he meant it and it happens.

Now go back and read my previous post. Re-read what I said about the literal meaning and the intent of the author. It is the intent of the author, Jesus, to give us His flesh and blood as true food and true drink. Jesus says in John 6:53 “…the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Now go back and re-read the Lords words which he repeated four different ways and remember the terms “phago” and “trogo.” The words He spoke are spirit and life, they are not symbolic. It simply doesn’t get any more real than that, and all of the early Christians and those that have stayed in fold of the Catholic Church have believed that the Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Lisa4Catholics:

PS Out of mere curiousity why do you use the St.Francis De Sales quote on your signature?

Lisa,

The good Doctor de Sales has been influential in my desire to come into the Body of Christ, the One Catholic Church. So I think it’s only fair to use quotes by him sometimes.

Obviously, I’m not Catholic, and I don’t want to come across 2-faced, but I think it won’t be long. Our Blessed Mother is the “Vanquisher of Heresy” and I can’t cling to my heretical schism too much longer.

So, isn’t there a better answer for what I presented about the signs of the covenant?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Reformed Rob:

Lisa,

The good Doctor de Sales has been influential in my desire to come into the Body of Christ, the One Catholic Church. So I think it’s only fair to use quotes by him sometimes.

Obviously, I’m not Catholic, and I don’t want to come across 2-faced, but I think it won’t be long. Our Blessed Mother is the “Vanquisher of Heresy” and I can’t cling to my heretical schism too much longer.

So, isn’t there a better answer for what I presented about the signs of the covenant?

:bowdown: I am a convert, the saints are awsome:thumbsup: I will throw up some extra prayers for your journey.God loves catching prayers God Bless

 

[Pax]

Curious and Reformed Bob,

Please note that I gave exegitical evidence for understanding both the Eucharist and the verses from Matthew concerning cutting off one’s hand and plucking out one’s eye. This is necessary for interpreting scripture and appreciating the meaning of what is being said. Sometimes symbolic language is obvious but clear in its meaning. When Jesus speaks of himself as the vine and refers to us as the branches, we know that He is speaking symbolically and we know what He means. In reference to the eating His flesh and blood, “everyone” at the seen knew that He was speaking literally and what he meant. They just wouldn’t accept it or believe it. Please note that it says in John 6:64 that “…there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him."

This verse explains the reality of what Jesus was saying. This verse makes it clear that the disciples that left Jesus, and also Judas, did not believe what He had said. There is no indication that they misunderstood Jesus. They simply did not believe. We believe the words of the Lord just as all Catholics have since the day of Pentecost.

 

[Pax]

Reformed Rob:

Well Pax, here’s some “literal” verses for you to ponder:

I Corinthians 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rockwhich followed them; and the **rock was Christ.
**
Did the rock’s substance change into the flesh and blood of Christ, but retain the look/feel/etc. of a rock?

Genesis 17:9,10
God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. **This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you; every male among you shall be circumcised. **

Ok, you might be tempted to think literally, that circumcision is the covenant. But wait, read on:

Genesis 17:11
And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and** it shall be the sign of the covenant** between Me and you."

So, why should we think that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ? We have elsewhere in Scripture that the “thing” is signified to represent (ie. the covenant), or be a sign of the “thing” without actually being that actual thing.

Do I really need to get into these exegetically? Should we simply say that everything in scripture is symbolic?

 

[Curious]

Please note that I gave exegitical evidence for understanding both the Eucharist and the verses from Matthew concerning cutting off one’s hand and plucking out one’s eye. This is necessary for interpreting scripture and appreciating the meaning of what is being said. Sometimes symbolic language is obvious but clear in its meaning. When Jesus speaks of himself as the vine and refers to us as the branches, we know that He is speaking symbolically and we know what He means. In reference to the eating His flesh and blood, “everyone” at the seen knew that He was speaking literally and what he meant. They just wouldn’t accept it or believe it. Please note that it says in John 6:64 that “…there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him."

Pax,

Again, I appreciate your effort. That long response in defense of the Eucharist was unnecessary though, as I am not even challenging it to begin with. However, what I quoted above that you said was most helpful. Thanks for your patience. I believe I’ve seen something here.

 

[tom_Sikora]

I have opened up a thread on Liturgy and Sacraments - sorry if this is duplication.

I pose this as an observation.

Why is essential to have the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Is God not everywhere? Did Jesus not sent the Holy Spirit to be our Consoler? Did Jesus not say he was going away (to allow the Spirit to come)? Was Jesus not coming back until the end of the world?

More directly, is, then, the Eucharist supposed to be concentrated God? If we are all filled with the Holy Spirit (at Baptism and Confirmation , etc) does come leak out that the Eucharist fills us up again.

Is a full glass of water tossed into the ocean wetter that an empty glass?!

The “in the breaking of the bread” was exactly that, the remembrance of me - they remembered Jesus - sounds like what Jesus asked in the first place. Note too that they didn’t realize that Jesus was Jesus in the partaking of the bread (that is after they ate the bread), but in the act of celebrating the moment and rejoining the Last Supper.

Comments appreciated.

tom

 

[Greyhawk]

I’ll comment:

Why is essential to have the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Because of Jesus’ commandment of John 6. Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" etc…

Is God not everywhere?

Yes, God is omnipresent, that’s not being denied. The Real Presence in the Eucharist does not detract from meeting Him other ways, but rather it draws us to a closer to an intimate relationship with Him.

Did Jesus not sent the Holy Spirit to be our Consoler?

Not sure where you’re going with this question, but yes. I think you meant “counselor,” but I’m sure the Holy Spirit works as a “consoler” too.

Did Jesus not say he was going away (to allow the Spirit to come)? Was Jesus not coming back until the end of the world?

Could you clarify on this “going away”? Is the Church not defined as the Body of Christ with Him at the head? That would make Him pretty present here and now; he didn’t leave us high and dry. If you’re referring to the Second Coming, that would be coming for judgment.

More directly, is, then, the Eucharist supposed to be concentrated God?

It’s supposed to be the Body and Blood of Jesus just like He said. Not sure what you mean by “concentrated God.” The grace bestowed upon those recieving the Eucharist often may not be recognized or fully understood. After all, at baptism, you dont necessarily see a glamorous Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove every time you exercise the sacrement, but that does not detract from the supernatural grace given by God.

If we are all filled with the Holy Spirit (at Baptism and Confirmation , etc) does come leak out that the Eucharist fills us up again.

I dont really undestand the question, maybe there’s a typo? Either way, each sacrement bestows a unique gift of grace in different forms to meet human needs. For example, the Sacrement of Penance serves as a visible sign of God’s forgiveness as well as a spiritual counselor. The priest does not forgive, God does, but having the visible sign of forgiveness through the priest provides a earthly sign of reassuranceand advise. It helps people deal with their problems and sin. A secular parallel would be seeing a therapist; only problem there is people usually never confront their problems and ask for forgiveness like Christians. Instead, they talk about their problems over and over sometimes being prescribed some anti-depressant. (That is not to say therapy isn’t helpful, but I’m just trying to draw a parallel to reveal my point.) Baptism serves as an initating sacrement into the family of God and makes us “holy,” or “set apart” in God’s eyes. All humans desire to be a part of a group and yet still set apart, kind of like being an individuarl among a clique of friends.

Is a full glass of water tossed into the ocean wetter that an empty glass?!

Coulud you clarify this question a little more? I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make or ask.

Dei gratia,
Greyhawk