The Real Presence in the Eucharist...

[AmericanJosiah]

What pushed Trent was that the original teaching of Jesus regarding His Presence was in serious danger. Transubstantiation was chosen as the Catholic position.

As you rightly say, the Dogma of Transubstantiation is unique to the Catholic Church.
I agree.

Perhaps, although Trent was held almost entirely in reaction to Lutheranism, which embraces Real Presence as clearly, boldly and centerally as does Catholicism.

Actually, Transubstantiation does nothing to support Real Presence. The issue there is not Christ or His presence, the issue there is, in what nature does bread and wine “exist” and HOW any molecular transmutation might have occured. Transubstantiation does not, in any sense, TAKE AWAY form Real Presence (I disagree with a few Lutherans on that point), but it doesn’t support it in any sense either - it’s just a separate, new, unique dogma that the CC made at Trent, perhaps (I fear) as just another nail to put in the coffin of Luther (albeit after his death), another thing to anathematize about Lutherans? In any case, it has nothing to do with Real Presence - one way or the other, IMHO.

I recently read a Protestant essay giving the reasons why this particular author thinks that Transubstantiation is an error.

I can share MY reasons for not accepted it as dogma (of course, you realize the differece in my view and that Protestants). If you want. But MAINLY, I simply find this dogma to be entirely unfounded in Scripture and Tradition, and I find it entirely unnecessary and moot. It creates the very same “split interpretation” that Zwingian Protestants have and I reject it for the very same reasons as I reject Zwingian “half real/ half not” view. Lutherans simply find the whole isssue moot. To us, it’s a SACRAMENT and it’s CHRIST. The focus should be on taht - not alchemy or Aristotle or desires to “explain away” Mystery. We can discuss this more if you want.

Today, the real division which makes the Catholic position unique is not only the nitty-gritty of Trent.

The actual issue is –

Does Jesus Christ remain substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine after the service?

Well, since you stress “APPEARANCES” - placing the emphasis not on the Sacrament and NOT on Christ but instead on ARISTOTELIAN ACCIDENTS, then I agree with you. That IS the divisive point, placing The Catholic Church since 1551 at variance with all others.

.

 

[grannymh]

We can discuss this more if you want.

Yes, I would like to continue discussion in order to learn what I do not know.

Well, since you stress “APPEARANCES” - placing the emphasis not on the Sacrament and NOT on Christ but instead on ARISTOTELIAN ACCIDENTS, then I agree with you. That IS the divisive point, placing The Catholic Church since 1551 at variance with all others.

In this century, appearances or accidents are prominent as being part of the sensory realm. Catholicism recognizes that the accidents or signs of a particular bread or host are color, taste, texture, size, etc. just as anyone else would recognize the same accidents of a particular bread or host. Accidents of a host do not change in either a Catholic or Lutheran service so I would not say that accidents are the divisive point.

However, if I were to put emphasis anywhere in my question – Does Jesus Christ remain substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine after the service? – it would be on the words substantially present.

What would be your response to this shift of emphasis?

Blessings,
granny

Humanity is the apple of God’s eye.

 

[JonNC]

As I mull over the word unique, I am not entirely convinced that the rather recent date of the Transubstantiation Dogma is the issue though it certainly contributed to it in the 16th century.

In my humble opinion, the current issue or difference centers around this question – Does Jesus Christ remain substantially present under the signs of bread and wine after the service?

Blessings,
granny

The Holy Eucharist Is The Light, Strength, And Life Of Our Souls.

From my perspective, it does. But as Josiah has been explaining, Lutherans are not dogmatic about such questions, because we see the Eucharist for one purpose - for us to eat and drink. So, leaving aside the reservation for the sick and shut in, some Lutherans will say that after the sacramental act, Christ is nolonger present, as the importance of His presence - eat and drink - is completed. This is probably a reaction to the Catholic practice of Eucharistic adoration, or more likely some of the abuses of it in Luther’s time.
On the other end of the question is receptionism - that He is not present until orally received. This has no support in the the Confessions, and is plainly unscriptural. As Josiah says - is is is - is isn’t will be when you eat.

Appropriate Lutheran practice should not be a reaction to Catholic teaching, but instead a reaction to scripture and Tradition that rightly reflects it.

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Let’s very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.

Matthew 26:26-29

1. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
2. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
3. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
4. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom."

First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took** bread**,
24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my** blood**; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the** cup** of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and** blood **of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Now…

REAL PRESENCE: Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglicans and Methodist

Real Presence is:

1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Literally, fully. Nothing less or more.
2. Real Presence accepts that the meaning of is is is (excuse the grammar, lol). This means that we receive Christ - quite literally, physically. When my pastor gives me the host, his exact words are: “Josiah, this IS the Body of Christ.”

Real Presence is NOT…

1. Real Presence is not a dogmatic denial of the words “bread” and “wine” AFTER the consecration as if we must take a “half real/half symbolic” interpretation of the text. It simply regards such as moot. The point of Real Presense is the presence of CHRIST. It’s not called, “The Denial of What Paul Wrote” because that’s not what it is, it is the AFFIRMATION of what he penned, that CHRIST is present. Really. Truly. Literally. Fully.
2. Real Presence is not a theory about anything or explanation regarding anything. It simply embraces EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. No less, no more.
3. Real Presence doesn’t teach or deny any “change.” That word never appears in any Eucharistic text. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. “IS” means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn’t imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, “This is a Toyota” means we accept this is a Toyota. Is has to do with existence, being, reality.

Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens, What happens - it doesn’t matter. We believe - because Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration. That’s good enough for the Orthodox and Lutherans, as well as many Anglicans and Methodist. And was for the RCC until 1551 when the RCC alone dogmatized a second view about the Eucharist, one that this thread has powerfully revealed has absolutely no biblical confirmation.

Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodist embrace Real Presense. The Catholic Church does too but it has been entirely buried under it’s own unique new secondary dogma, that of Transubstantiation, so much so that many Catholics I’ve found don’t even know what Real Presence is, only the new unique RCC second dogma.

… continues in the next post.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

… continues the post above

.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION: Catholic Church, officially since 1551

This is another Eucharistic dogma of The Catholic Church (alone).

The Mystery of Real Presense does raise some questions (unanswered by Scripture or the ECF - and altogether, entirely moot). All regarded these as just that - questions, until western Catholic “Scholasticism” arose in the middle ages. It was focused on combining Christian thought with secular ideas - in the hopes of making Christianity more intellectual and even more to explain away away some of its mysteries. It eventually came up with several theories about the Eucharist. One of these was “Transubstantiation.”

Although no one claims there’s any biblical confirmation of this, and while all admit it lacks any ecumenical or historic embrace, it should be noted that there are a FEW snippets from RCC “Fathers” that speak of “change.” But, while Orthodox, Lutherans and others are comfortable with that word, it doesn’t imply any transubstantiation.

“Transubstantiation” is a very precise, technical term from alchemy. It is the term for and from alchemy. You’ll recall from high school chemistry class that alchemy was the dream that, via incantations and the use of chemicals and herbs, fundamental substance (we’ll call such elements) may be transformed from one to entirely others (lead to gold was the typical objective). These western, medieval, Catholic “Scholastics” theorized that the Consecration is an alchemic transubstantiation.

This, however, caused a bit of a problem! Because, in alchemy, the transubstantiated substance normally would have the properties of the NEW substance, and one of the “questions” of Real Presense is why it still has the properties of bread and wine. Here these western, medival Catholic theorists turned to another pop idea of the day: Accidents. This came hook, line and sinker from Aristotle. He theorized that substance could have properties (he called them “accidents” - it’s a very precise term for his theory) that are entirely unrelated to the substance. Sometimes called “ghost physics,” the one part of his theory of “accidents” seemed especially useful to these medieval Catholic theorists. He stated that properties of one thing could CONTINUE after the actual causative substannce ceased. His example was lightening. Seeing the connection between lightening and thunder, but knowing nothing of wave physics, he taught that the SOUND of lightening continues long after the lightening ceased to exist: this is an “accident.” This, then , is what we have in the Eucharist: ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (since, in transubstantiation, bread and wine no longer exist in any real physics sense - it was transubstantiated). No one claims that this has any biblical confirmation or that the RCC “father” referenced Aristotle’s Accidents - even as pure theoretical pious opinion.

In Catholicism, there are TWO dogmas vis-a-vis the Eucharist: Real Presence and Transubstantiation. The later was first suggested in the 9th century and made dogma in 1551 (a bit after Luther’s death), some say in order to anathematize Luther on the Eucharist since he did not affirm such. Luther regarded it as abiblical, textually problemmatic and unnecessary.

From The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The doctrine of transubstantiation, like many other doctrines of the papal church, was a controversial question for centuries before it received final adoption. It was Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk (786-860), who first theorized transubstantiation by the changing of the elements into the “body and blood of Christ.” From the publishing of his treatise in A. D. 831 until the fourth Lateran Council in A. D. 1215, many fierce verbal battles were fought by the bishops against the teaching of Paschasius. - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. ii, p. 518

I hope that helps.

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[grannymh]

From my perspective, it does. But as Josiah has been explaining, Lutherans are not dogmatic about such questions, because we see the Eucharist for one purpose - for us to eat and drink. So, leaving aside the reservation for the sick and shut in, some Lutherans will say that after the sacramental act, Christ is nolonger present, as the importance of His presence - eat and drink - is completed. This is probably a reaction to the Catholic practice of Eucharistic adoration, or more likely some of the abuses of it in Luther’s time.
On the other end of the question is receptionism - that He is not present until orally received. This has no support in the the Confessions, and is plainly unscriptural. As Josiah says - is is is - is isn’t will be when you eat.

Appropriate Lutheran practice should not be a reaction to Catholic teaching, but instead a reaction to scripture and Tradition that rightly reflects it.

Jon

This discussion is becoming more and more helpful to me. Thank you. I believe I saw in some post that Josiah was Missouri Synod. May I ask if what you are speaking about refers to Missouri Synod? My apology, but I am not sure I know the correct name for the evangelical Lutherans.

I am interested in more information regarding your comments about the reservation for the sick and shut in. Years ago, as a Pastoral Care volunteer in our local hospital, (which made me generic) I often told pastors how important it was to visit their members and bring Communion if that was their practice. There was a Methodist patient who broke my heart because she so missed Communion. I passed the information on.

Another question. When does Jesus become truly present? And when is He not truly present? I am having a bit of trouble understanding the sacramental act as the eating and drinking. Did I understand correctly that after the service, the remaining bread and wine were treated with respect but were not considered the Real Presence? I think my problem is the time frame. I am a Pooh bear with a very little brain.

Since you mentioned the Catholic practice of Eucharistic Adoration, eventually I would like to use that practice as part of the demonstration of Transubstantiation. Yes, I am aware of most of the objections concerning adoration outside of liturgy, even the objections from some Catholics. As one of the lay founders of 24/7 Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration in our town, I had to make sure that any objections were addressed properly.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[ccolley]

Transubstantiation IS unique to The Catholic Church alone. And it is dogma in only The Catholic Church (declared so at Trent in 1551).

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, many Anglicans and some Methodist all agree that Christ is literally, physically, substantially present. We are all declared heretics by The Catholic Church. Again, where the “division” is at is with the unique, 1551 dogma of The Catholic Church on Transubstantiation.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Josiah:
The idea of Transubstantiation is much older than Trent:
St. Basil the Great (AD 372)
*“It were needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be obliged, in the absence of a priest or deacon, to receive communion by his own hand is certainly not a serious offence, because long custom sanctions this practice in such cases. Indeed, all the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, reserving communion at home, receive it from their own hands.” *

Therefore, if people(back then) could receive communion at a time other than a Mass, then the Real Presence of Christ has to ALWAYS remain AFTER the Mass is over. Notice that St. Basil says that “long custom sanctions this practice” …so we can assume that long before the word Transubstantiation was coined that “Transubstantiation” was already believed by the faithful and taught by the Apostles. Transubstantiation is just a non-biblical word that explains what happens to the bread and wine after the words of consecration. Trinity is also a non-biblical word that expresses our Christian belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
It looks like bread and wine and tastes like bread and wine, but it no longer IS bread and wine, rather it IS the body and blood of our Lord. When something is CHANGED into something else…it does not changed back once the “service” is over. Where is THAT in the bible or Tradition? I would say that it is the Protestant idea of “Real Presence” that is the “novel” idea.

BTW, I grew up in the Methodist Tradition…I have never heard of Methodists believing in the Real Presence. Learn something new everyday.
CC

 

[JonNC]

.

1. Real Presence doesn’t teach or deny any “change.” That word never appears in any Eucharistic text. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. “IS” means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn’t imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, “This is a Toyota” means we accept this is a Toyota. Is has to do with existence, being, reality.

I think this is important, also, because the word “becomes” also does not appear. Christ simply says “is”. He doesn’t even say, “is now”. He says “is”. So, when the pastor/priest speaks His words, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread is His body, the wine is His blood.

All of our discussions and arguing over Transub, Consub, or even Sacramental Union, are reduced to mere speculation, and the disposition of the bread and wine becomes irrelevent when He says, “this is my body”.

Jon

 

[Verbum_Caro]

From The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The doctrine of transubstantiation, like many other doctrines of the papal church, was a controversial question for centuries before it received final adoption. It was Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk (786-860), who first theorized transubstantiation by the changing of the elements into the “body and blood of Christ.” From the publishing of his treatise in A. D. 831 until the fourth Lateran Council in A. D. 1215, many fierce verbal battles were fought by the bishops against the teaching of Paschasius. - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. ii, p. 518

Josiah,

Could you provide more information regarding the citation above? Are you qouting from someone else quoting the Catholic Encylopedia, or are you quoting from the original source? And is that quote verbatim?

Thank you,
VC

VC

 

[JonNC]

=grannymh;6189747]This discussion is becoming more and more helpful to me. Thank you. I believe I saw in some post that Josiah was Missouri Synod. May I ask if what you are speaking about refers to Missouri Synod? My apology, but I am not sure I know the correct name for the evangelical Lutherans.

I am Missouri Synod, as well. Briefly, Lutherans are grouped by various synods, often based on historic nationality. the major Lutheran groups in America are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS), and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS). There are also other smaller synods.

I am interested in more information regarding your comments about the reservation for the sick and shut in. Years ago, as a Pastoral Care volunteer in our local hospital, (which made me generic) I often told pastors how important it was to visit their members and bring Communion if that was their practice. There was a Methodist patient who broke my heart because she so missed Communion. I passed the information on.

I’m not knowledgable enough in Methodist practices to comment though your story breaks my heart, too. My dad, who was a Lutheran pastor, regularly took communion to sick and shut-ins.

Another question. When does Jesus become truly present? And when is He not truly present? I am having a bit of trouble understanding the sacramental act as the eating and drinking.

Again, no specific dogmatic focus on a particular moment in the liturgy, but just as He said “this is”, so we believe it is His body when the words are spoken by the pastor, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Did I understand correctly that after the service, the remaining bread and wine were treated with respect but were not considered the Real Presence? I think my problem is the time frame. I am a Pooh bear with a very little brain.

Me too. Do you have some huny to share?

I think that many Lutherans would agree with this, except as we spoke of with the sick - the sacramnetal action. I take a more historic Church view that His presence remains. The LCMS recommends the consumption of the remaining elements, in order to ensure proper reverence.

Since you mentioned the Catholic practice of Eucharistic Adoration, eventually I would like to use that practice as part of the demonstration of Transubstantiation. Yes, I am aware of most of the objections concerning adoration outside of liturgy, even the objections from some Catholics. As one of the lay founders of 24/7 Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration in our town, I had to make sure that any objections were addressed properly.

I’m curious, granny, what you mean by the bolded. As to the rest, there are some Lutheran / Catholic documents that speak to the piety and reverence practices that divide us, and encourage understanding and sensitivity to each other.

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I think this is important, also, because the word “becomes” also does not appear. Christ simply says “is”. He doesn’t even say, “is now”. He says “is”. So, when the pastor/priest speaks His words, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread is His body, the wine is His blood.

All of our discussions and arguing over Transub, Consub, or even Sacramental Union, are reduced to mere speculation, and the disposition of the bread and wine becomes irrelevent when He says, “this is my body”.

Jon

I could not agree more…

.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:
The idea of Transubstantiation is much older than Trent:
St. Basil the Great (AD 372)
*“It were needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be obliged, in the absence of a priest or deacon, to receive communion by his own hand is certainly not a serious offence, because long custom sanctions this practice in such cases. Indeed, all the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, reserving communion at home, receive it from their own hands.” *

Yes, my Catholic teachers taught me it goes back to the 9th century. But it had no official embrace until 1215 and wasn’t dogma until 1551. It still is a unique doctrine of The Catholic church.

Sorry, but I see nothing in the quote from St. Basil that has anything to do with Transubstantiation…

Therefore, if people(back then) could receive communion at a time other than a Mass, then the Real Presence of Christ has to ALWAYS remain AFTER the Mass is over. Notice that St. Basil says that “long custom sanctions this practice” …so we can assume that long before the word Transubstantiation was coined that “Transubstantiation” was already believed by the faithful and taught by the Apostles.

Sorry, I’m entirely lost. Are you talking about Real Presence? Or the dogma of Transubstantiation? Or the concept of the Presence remaining?

I disagree that because St. Basil the Great (blessed as he was) said something in 383 AD, ergo all 13 or 14 Apostles taught it. It may or may not be true, but I fail to see that necessary mandate that ergo the Apostles taught such as such.

It looks like bread and wine and tastes like bread and wine, but it no longer IS bread and wine, rather it IS the body and blood of our Lord. When something is CHANGED into something else…

1. Yes, that IS the focus and point of this new, unique Catholic dogma. It’s not about it being Sacramental or being Christ; it’s not about Real Presence (that was already a doctrine - LONG before anyone thought up Transubstantiation). It’s all focused on physics and the bread and wine (however you understand or disunderstand such). As a Lutheran, I find both amazingly moot. And I find both issues entirely unaddressed by Scripture and the earliest Fathers.
2. Yes, the meaning of is is is (pardon the grammar, lol). CHRIST IS present. Literally, truly, fully, physically. When my Lutheran pastor places the Host on my tongue, his literal (and very Lutheran words here, lol) are this, “Josiah, this IS the Body of Christ.” That’s Real Presense. Now, he says NOTHING about the tasteless waffer because WHO CARES?! I can buy bread any day, and probably a LOT better bread! This isn’t about the pastor giving me a tasteless, little waffer about about Christ giving me HIMSELF - literally, fully - in all His grace and mercy.
3. I remind you that the word “change” or “convert” or “becomes” appears nowhere in any Eucharistic text. It says “is.” “Is” has to do with BEING. When I point to my car and say, “This IS a Toyota” - that says nothing about it once being a cow but some alchemic transubstantiation occured and it became a Toyota. “Is” has to do with being, existence. It has nothing to do with converting - much less a very specific type of conversion.
4. Lutherans (as Orthodox and pre 1215 Catholics) are very comfortable with the term “change.” Why? Because when the nice ladies set up the Eucharist, they just put up there some bread and wine (I know, because my own mother has done this for DECADES). It’s just bread and wine. But I receive CHRIST! Is there a change? As Lutherans would say, “youbetcha.” But that suggests NOTHING about any transubstantiation, it says nothing about any Aristotelian accidents, and it doesn’t even say anything about the bread and wine (AS IF SUCH MATTERED IN THE LEAST - why all this fasination on the waffer and that wine?). As my Toyota came down the assembly line (in Ohio, I think), it changed. But that doesn’t imply anything was transformed into anything less. It’s all just speculation of what the meaning of “change” or “becomes” or “converts” means in the text - but those words are not found in the text! It’s not only pure speculation - but pure speculation on terms that don’t even exist in ANY Eucharistic text.
5. I remind you that Paul speaks of bread and wine more often AFTER the Consecration that he does before. Since 1551, The Catholic Church just embraces a “split interpretation” of those words - it means “bread” and “wine” literally and fully BEFORE but it means something very symbolic AFTER. It’s the same “half is/half isn’t” thing that Zwingli got into, also in the 16th century. The Catholic Church and Zwingli just don’t seem to agree on which half is and which half kinda isn’t. I have no problem just accepting what Jesus and Paul said. It’s just, well, who cares about that waffer and that wine when CHRIST is there - with all His grace and mercy!

.

 

[grannymh]

.

“Transubstantiation” is a very precise, technical term from alchemy. It is the term for and from alchemy. You’ll recall from high school chemistry class that alchemy was the dream that, via incantations and the use of chemicals and herbs, fundamental substance (we’ll call such elements) may be transformed from one to entirely others (lead to gold was the typical objective). These western, medieval, Catholic “Scholastics” theorized that the Consecration is an alchemic transubstantiation.

This, however, caused a bit of a problem! Because, in alchemy, the transubstantiated substance normally would have the properties of the NEW substance, and one of the “questions” of Real Presense is why it still has the properties of bread and wine.

I hope that helps.

Thank you!

Pax

• Josiah
  .

I am not sure how to put this elegantly, but your hard work is actually helping me to understand why Catholic Transubstantiation is being misunderstood.

First, Catholic Transubstantiation is not related to alchemy since alchemy’s asserted aim is transmutation of base metals into gold. In physics, transmutation means transformation of one element into another by one or a series of nuclear reactions. (American Heritage College Dictionary) The same dictionary points out that alchemy is a medieval chemical philosophy. Regarding transubstantiation, both a secular and a Christian definition are given.

Guessing from what St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he would immediately know why transmutation in alchemy, chemistry or physics could not possibly refer to bread becoming the Body of Christ. Base metal to gold, element to another element involve only natural materials. None of these can become a spiritual being. In other words, transmutation cannot produce Divinity.

Because Scripture is explicit about the implicit change in that the substance of normal bread is now substantially Jesus, True God, medieval comparisons to alchemy, chemistry or any natural science are inappropriate.
Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it and giving it to His disciples said,
“Take and eat; this is My Body.” (Matthew 26: 26-28)

The second misunderstanding of Catholic Transubstantiation involves the misuse of metaphysical terms. Since there are a lot of posts flying, I will wait. There are people more knowledgeable than I am.

Blessings,
granny

Recommended reading:

*In the Presence of Our Lord, the History, Theology, and Psychology *
of Eucharistic Devotion
by Father Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R., and James Monti.
ISBN 0-87973-920-7

 

[Verbum_Caro]

"AmericanJosiah:

From The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The doctrine of transubstantiation, like many other doctrines of the papal church, was a controversial question for centuries before it received final adoption. It was Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk (786-860), who first theorized transubstantiation by the changing of the elements into the “body and blood of Christ.” From the publishing of his treatise in A. D. 831 until the fourth Lateran Council in A. D. 1215, many fierce verbal battles were fought by the bishops against the teaching of Paschasius. - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. ii, p. 518

Josiah,

Any info about the above? As best I can make out this is a direct quote from The Wine of Roman Babylon, by Mary Walsh, who in turn cites The Catholic Encyclopedia and The Variations of Popery by Samuel Edgar.

The problem is, I don’t find anything like this in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Also, I think one might be justly skeptical of the historical interpretation put forth if it comes from two extremely anti-Catholic sources.

A couple of other questions for clarification:

.
Sometimes called “ghost physics,”

Could you elaborate? Who called Aristotles Metaphysics “ghost physics”? I’ve never run across that.

AmericanJosiah:

(Aristotle) stated that properties of one thing could CONTINUE after the actual causative substannce ceased. His example was lightening. Seeing the connection between lightening and thunder, but knowing nothing of wave physics, he taught that the SOUND of lightening continues long after the lightening ceased to exist: this is an “accident.”

Interesting. Can you cite to that? You are saying that Aristotle used thunder as an example of an accident? And that he thought that the accident could exist without the underlying substance? Can you show us where in Aristotle that is?

VC

 

[tim_vasquez]

Be like a child, that’s what Jesus told us as written in one of the scriptures. Our belief and should be like that of a child. If we intellectualize our faith of the real presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist,that is, looking for evidences,clues and historical facts, then our minds will be clouded with doubts. in believing, all it needs is a strong faith like that of a child.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Because Scripture is explicit about the implicit change in that the substance of normal bread is now substantially Jesus, True God, medieval comparisons to alchemy, chemistry or any natural science are inappropriate.
Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it and giving it to His disciples said,
“Take and eat; this is My Body.” (Matthew 26: 26-28)

Here’s where all disagree with the post Council of Trent Catholic Church…

There might be some interesting hermeneutics of the words “change” “transmutates” “becomes” "converts’ in the Eucharistic texts. The thing is, none of those words exist in any of those texts.

What the texts clearly state is “is.” “Is” indicates being, existence - the verb has nothing to do with conversion or change.

Remember too: Jesus and Paul speak of bread and wine AFTER the consecration, in the case of Paul, FAR more than before the consecration. I think the new, unique Catholic “take” on this might be at least theoretically possible if that were not the case. But, as it is, the min. required is for The Catholic Church to do EXACTLY as Zwingli did (in the opposite direction) - somehow embrace a “split half is/ half isn’t” interpretation - each without any textual support or indication. IMHO, there’s no difference in the hermeneutic of Zwingli or of The Catholic Church in this regard - you’d just chosen different words to arbitralily take literally or symbolicly (or at least less than literal).

The second misunderstanding of Catholic Transubstantiation involves the misuse of metaphysical terms.

Western, medieval, Catholic Scholasticism largely embraced the idea of merging the popular secular ideas of the day with Christian theology in hopes of explaining things. Alchemy’s central theme, it’s foundational concept was known by a very technical, very precise term: transubstantiation. It was the idea that a substance can be fundamentally converted from one thing to another (yes, lead to gold was the goal of those that believed this theory) - it was all the rage when the theory of Transubstantiation in the Eucharist was invented.

Accident was also a very precise, technical term from Aristotle. Basically, it means that a reality may have properties entirely unrelated to it. My physics prof called it “ghost physics” (his term), that properties may be unrelated to physics (as we think of it) - so that I might look in the mirror and see some male super model instead, lol. Again, these were very technical, precise terms - used by Catholic Scholastics in coming up with this new theory (centuries later made dogma).

Again, Lutherans, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Catholics before 1215 were and are comfortable with the term “change” - since such simply indicates that a change happened. But that has NOTHING REMOTELY to suggest any transubstantiation leaving behind Aristotelian accidents! Change just means change, lol. There IS a change, because the nice ladies put bread and wine up there and we receive CHRIST! Is that not change!!! But it has NOTHING REMOTELY to do with Transubstantiation or alchemy or Aristotle or accidents - and requires no “explaining away” of what Jesus said or Paul penned (as Zwingli and post Trent Catholics need to do).

Again, Lutherans stick with Real Presence. Powerfully, passionately, faithfully. It is the embrace of EXACTLY what the Eucharistic texts say. Literally. Fully. Just as the Father’s proclaimed as they do embraced the words. Real Presense affirms that the meaning of is is is. IS has to do with being, existence - so Christ IS present. His real Body. His real Blood. True - it doesn’t DENY what Jesus said and Paul penned, “bread” and “wine” AFTER the Consecration - it just doesn’t care (to be blunt). I honestly don’t know WHY (historically or theologically) WHY The Catholic Church alone is so very, very fasinated - to the point of needing dogma - in that tasteless wafer and non-inspiring wine WHEN CHRIST IS THERE! To Lutherans, the point is CHRIST. This is a Sacrament of Christ, of His grace and mercy, His power and forgiveness, His presence! It’s not about alchemy or Aristotle. I just see this medieval attempt to merge two pop ideas of the day (long, long ago rejected) with the Holy Eucharist as accomplishing anything other than to direct our attention away from Christ and to moot speculations about words that don’t even appear in the text, AND it gets The Catholic Church into the same “problem” that Zwingli Protestants get into: how to justify their entirely untextual “split” half literal/ half symbolic interpretation of the texts.

Now, I don’t denounce it. I don’t actually regard ANY official Catholic dogma to be heresy. But I find this one entirely unsubstantiated - by Scripture or Tradition, unnecessary, hermeneutically problematic, and maybe most of all - distracting. THAT SAID, spiritually, we are twins. Lutherans, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and many Anglicans may disagree with Catholics on Transubstantiation - but we all agree on Real Presence. We are passionate about that and it forms a deep, rich part of our Christian spirituality. Kinda sad this bit of medieval speculation over words that don’t even exists divides us - but MUCH, MUCH unites us on THIS point. IMHO, we are FAR closer on the Eucharist than Lutherans are with most Protestants.

.

 

[ccolley]

Yes, my Catholic teachers taught me it goes back to the 9th century. But it had no official embrace until 1215 and wasn’t dogma until 1551. It still is a unique doctrine of The Catholic church.

Sorry, but I see nothing in the quote from St. Basil that has anything to do with Transubstantiation…

 

[JimG]

Accident was also a very precise, technical term from Aristotle. Basically, it means that a reality may have properties entirely unrelated to it…

Not entirely unrelated. Accidents are related quite closely to the essence of a thing (i.e. the “substance”); that is how we know reality. Our senses can only perceive the accidents, never the substance. When I perceive any physical object, it is through the (name removed by moderator)ut which those accidents make upon my senses, but I can never touch the essence of any object directly. (Nor can any scientific instrument: they measure and record only accidents.)

Yes, when the scriptures use the term “is” to equate the bread and wine to Christ’s body and blood, that means they must BE Christ’s body and blood.

How then, to account for the fact that the accidents of bread and wine remain? The doctrine of transubstantiation says that the accidents of bread and wine remain but they do not inhere in any subject. They cannot inhere in Christ, as he has his own proper accidents.

Transubstantiation also posits that while the accidents of bread and wine may be multiplied (because many receive them), Christ’s body (in its substance) is not multiplied. Each communicant receives the singular, one and only Christ. Thus, in receiving communion, the communicants really are united in the one body of Christ, as St. Paul says, because each receives the very same Christ.

 

[grannymh]

Western, medieval, Catholic Scholasticism largely embraced the idea of merging the popular secular ideas of the day with Christian theology in hopes of explaining things.

While there are rogues in every century and every institution, such as commented above, a small explanation of basic Scholasticism is needed.

Scholasticism is a word or a term used to designate both a method and a system of obtaining knowledge. The distinguishing mark of Scholasticism is its use of the dialectical method. This was applied to the study of nature, our human nature, and spiritual truth. In Greek philosophy dialectic originally signified instruction by question and answer. In the process of reasoning, the term dialectic came to denote the skill of inference or argument and in this sense it would be synonymous with logic. The goal of dialectics or argumentation is the acquisition of truth.

On the other side of the coin were the champions of mysticism and intuition. This is
a both / and situation regarding Catholic teachings. For example, St. Augustine believed that faith aided reason (credo ut intelligam) and that reason aided faith (intelligo ut credam). However, during his period, the first principle was emphasized. A methodology would be added by the Scholastics or Schoolmen as they were called.

Scholasticism used the gift of reason for the elucidation of spiritual truth and in defense of the teachings in the Apostolic age. Among the achievements of Thomas Aquinas is that he refuted the Arabian interpretation of Aristotle. He demonstrated that the active intellect is a power of the immaterial spiritual soul which is immortal and created by God.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, I’m entirely lost. Are you talking about Real Presence? Or the dogma of Transubstantiation? Or the concept of the Presence remaining?

If I may offer a personal observation,
the difficulty is that the above three questions “Are you talking about Real Presence? Or the dogma of Transubstantiation? Or the concept of the Presence remaining?” appear to be separate concepts. This is understandable since the dogma’s date appears to be the divisive point.

What is actually happening is that Trent erroneously is made to act as a wedge to divide the truth of Jesus into disposable sections.

On the contrary, the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, Presence remaining is one Jesus, True God and True Man.

Blessings,
granny

Jesus is the loving Savior for all.