"To Whom Shall We Go? Why the Catholic Eucharist?"

[allofgrace]

Thank you for posting this - I knew I’d read something (likely in Scott Hahn’s book, The Lamb’s Supper) about that.

When we go to Mass, we are participating with the angels and saints in their never-ending worship in Heaven. The Mass is Heaven on earth - you don’t get that at your local Protestant church.

You certainly don’t and there is not the same GRACE involved either. I know the difference from experience - 54 years a Protestant; 14 years Catholic.

I’ll try and find the word that is used for it - it goes FAR, FAR deeper that just looking back. Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is a work of God and not of men and many do not understand that it is more than a “form of godliness but denying the power thereof.”

 

[MarcoPolo]

One can believe in the real presence without believing in transubstantiation.

Really? Could you explain this to me. I am interested.

 

[Mannyfit75]

One can believe in the real presence without believing in transubstantiation. A pastor once told me that transubstantiation was a fictional way to try and make people believe that you can make Christ appear like a magician can make a rabbit appear out of a hat. He said that this is a true heresy.

This is such an uncharitable comment by using the analogy of Christ appearing like a magican can make a rabbit appear out of the a hat.

If you been to Mass and if you listen to the words of the priest during the Epiclesis (calling on the Holy Spirit).

Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ

.

When he later says the words of the consecration.

Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks, He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you.

When the supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

 

[allofgrace]

Sure, the Lutherans do it every week…Christ’s body and blood are really and truly present in a sacramental union with the bread and wine…“in, with and under” the elements.

And what do you think of the way in which this doctrine was formed and given to the Lutherans? (see my post on how Luther formulated this doctrine).

Do Lutherans REALLY do this. The problem here is does God have a way to do HIS EUCHARIST and participate in giving it by HIS POWER only in HIS WAY? If it is actually the body and blood of Christ then God must do the CONSECRATING? “As we receive… from your altar in heaven…”

Does God dispense the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity to the Catholic altar and similarly to the Orthodox altar and dispense something different to the Lutheran altar? Dear Lord, bless this thing we’ve made up? Is that how it goes. :nope:

Think about it!

 

[allofgrace]

This is such an uncharitable comment by using the analogy of Christ appearing like a magican can make a rabbit appear out of the a hat.

If you been to Mass and if you listen to the words of the priest during the Epiclesis (calling on the Holy Spirit)…

I’ve had a 70 year old man who teaches SS in a Nazarene church call and send me information telling about how terrible the Catholic Church is and that I need to come out of it. Some of what he says is as crass as the uncharitable remark by the “pastor” mentioned in the above post. There is a problem with all of this that makes me have cold chills and feel extremely sorry for those who hold to and make such statements.

BLASPHEMY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT - when one attributes something that is done in the power of the Holy Spirit to something lesser like “magic” or a man’s actions, etc, that sin can not be forgiven, says our Lord, either in this life or in the next.

 

[allofgrace]

Really? Could you explain this to me. I am interested.

No not really! But that doesn’t keep people from explaining at a great rate. The question is is there REALLY A GOD? And does that GOD have HIS TRUTH? or does He merely sit and allow each of us to make up our own “truth?”

If everything is truth then there is no truth.

 

[GKC]

Really? Could you explain this to me. I am interested.

I’m not BrewMax, but I’ll give it a shot.

The real Presence is a concept of “what”; as Canon 1 of the 13th Session of Trent put it, that in the confected Eucharist there is present, truly, really and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That’s the “what” of the Real Presence. Then there might be the question of the “how”; just how does this Presence come about, and in what form. An answer, as given briefly in Canon 2, Session 13, is through what the RCC calls transubstantiation, which is de fide for RCs. Theoretically, one can believe in the Real Presence, as proclaimed by the early Church, and not accept the later explanation of transubstantiation. Some people do, others don’t.

I’m always reminded that, as C. S. Lewis phrased it, the command was “Take, eat”, not “Take, understand”.

GKC

 

[MarcoPolo]

No not really!

An answer, as given briefly in Canon 2, Session 13, is through what the RCC calls transubstantiation, which is de fide for RCs. Theoretically, one can believe in the Real Presence, as proclaimed by the early Church, and not accept the later explanation of transubstantiation. Some people do, others don’t.

I guess I’ll let Brewmax give it a shot. GKC you said transubstantiation is de fide, so how can a true Catholic not believe it?

What I was hoping to find from Brewmax was that if there is no transubstantiation, how does bread and wine come to possess the Real Presence?

I will wait for his answer, he seems active here.

 

[GKC]

I guess I’ll let Brewmax give it a shot. GKC you said transubstantiation is de fide, so how can a true Catholic not believe it?

I worded that poorly. I meant that some folks (not RCs, wouldn’t speak for them) might accept the concept of the Real Presence, as taught by the early church, while not necessarily accepting transubstantiation as an explanation/explication of that fact. A true RC should certainly affirm both.

What I was hoping to find from Brewmax was that if there is no transubstantiation, how does bread and wine come to possess the Real Presence?

The “how” seems not to be an essential concept, for many (not speaking of RCs). See the Lewis quote above. Some things are mysteries.

I will wait for his answer, he seems active here.

Ok.

GKC

 

[rr1213]

And what do you think of the way in which this doctrine was formed and given to the Lutherans? (see my post on how Luther formulated this doctrine).

The question was whether one can believe in the Real Presence without believing in transubstantiation. The answer is most assuredly “yes” and I gave the Lutherans as a prominent example of this. What do I think about the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist? I believe it to be more scripturally true than the Catholic theory of transubstantiation.

 

[Big_Dave]

As I became a catholic this last easter (2007) all I could think of is that soon I would be recieving my Lord in the Eucharist!! After 75 years as an evangelical protestant I have been brought closer the my Lord than ever before. I have experienced so much grace in helping me overcome my the sin that I have always fought so hard to deal with. I could never ever consider leaving the church. Where would I go?? I have not given any theological reasons here but I can witness to the graces I have recieved,

Praise God!!

 

[Pixie_Dust]

As I became a catholic this last easter (2007) all I could think of is that soon I would be recieving my Lord in the Eucharist!! After 75 years as an evangelical protestant I have been brought closer the my Lord than ever before. I have experienced so much grace in helping me overcome my the sin that I have always fought so hard to deal with. I could never ever consider leaving the church. Where would I go?? I have not given any theological reasons here but I can witness to the graces I have recieved,

Praise God!!

[SIGN]Hallelujah![/SIGN]75 years as a protestant? Wow. That’s amazing. Would you be willing to share your conversion story here?

 

[BrewMax]

And you are telling me, devout Catholics who practice their faith don’t? Do you assume to know the hearts and minds of Catholics who go to Mass?

I have had some pretty indepth conversations with parishioners and they are certainly not of the mindset that communion is body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. I’ll bet many of them couldn’t recite the Act of Contrition without help. This is why I say that the church has done a terrible job of educating its faithful on the faith. These people are taking it all on faith because they don’t know squat. I think this is very wrong! Just my thoughts.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I have had some pretty indepth conversations with parishioners and they are certainly not of the mindset that communion is body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. I’ll bet many of them couldn’t recite the Act of Contrition without help. This is why I say that the church has done a terrible job of educating its faithful on the faith. These people are taking it all on faith because they don’t know squat. I think this is very wrong! Just my thoughts.

May I ask, what are you doing to help the Church educate the faithful and correct this malady? Is it so terrible to accept (some) things on faith without knowing all the ecclesiastical terminology?

 

[BrewMax]

And what are you doing to help the Church educate the faithful and correct this malady?

sharing my knowledge as best I can about what I believe to be the truth like the real presence.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The “how” seems not to be an essential concept, for many (not speaking of RCs). See the Lewis quote above. Some things are mysteries.

Thanks for clarifying. But that would beg the question: if one believed that after bread and wine are created, and at some point they are the Real Presence, one must acknowledge a change in substance whether it is a mystery or not.

 

[GKC]

Thanks for clarifying. But that would beg the question: if one believed that after bread and wine are created, and at some point they are the Real Presence, one must acknowledge a change in substance whether it is a mystery or not.

Certainly, and almost tautologically, if there is a change, there is a change. But it doesn’t beg the question, it discounts it. To acknowledge that change doesn’t require one to know how it occurs. Transubstantiation is as reasonable and noble a way to account for it as one might find. But one need not find one, to take and eat.

GKC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

GKC,

I’m not sure I follow entirely.

I understand your point that to acknowledge the change does not require one to know how it occurs, but could one not say that knowing what “type” of change occurs is determinative of whether or not one is acknowledging the actual change taking place?

For instance, could someone acknowledge the change, but think it is an accidental change? Or perhaps one could acknowledge the change but think that it is a temporary change. Or perhaps one could acknowledge the change but think that it is not so much a change as an addition.

In other words, are there actually three components: 1)acknowledging “a change” 2)acknowledging what kind of change 3) knowing how that kind of change happens?

What do you think?
VC

 

[MarcoPolo]

Certainly, and almost tautologically, if there is a change, there is a change. But it doesn’t beg the question, it discounts it. To acknowledge that change doesn’t require one to know how it occurs. Transubstantiation is as reasonable and noble a way to account for it as one might find. But one need not find one, to take and eat.

GKC

Well…Catholic teaching doesn’t really profess to know how Transubstantiation occurs either, other than it is God’s work (cf. Catechism #1375) and that He is present “mysteriously” (cf. Catechism #1380).

But the Church realizes it must occur. Kind of in line with Lewis, no? Am I missing something?

 

[GKC]

GKC,

I’m not sure I follow entirely.

I understand your point that to acknowledge the change does not require one to know how it occurs, but could one not say that knowing what “type” of change occurs is determinative of whether or not one is acknowledging the actual change taking place?

For instance, could someone acknowledge the change, but think it is an accidental change? Or perhaps one could acknowledge the change but think that it is a temporary change. Or perhaps one could acknowledge the change but think that it is not so much a change as an addition.

In other words, are there actually three components: 1)acknowledging “a change” 2)acknowledging what kind of change 3) knowing how that kind of change happens?

What do you think?
VC

I think those are good questions. Not sure what “accidental” means in that context, though. Surely not the Thomistic accident.

But temporary, no, I don’t see how. Looking at the baseline justification for the Real Presence dogma, that this is my Body/Blood, I don’t note an expiration date attached. Thus once it is the Body/Blood, it remains so. And not in any receptionist mode, either. And if it were in some sense consubstantial, I’d expect more wording like “This includes my Body/Blood”. Sort of like how one doesn’t reason it represents the Body /Blood. He didn’t say so.The “how” still seems to me superflous to the command. Thus I see more like two components: acknowledging a change (for sufficent scriptural and ECF reasons) and ackowledging it is what Our Lord said it was, however it became so.

“How” is perhaps interesting, but it isn’t the sort of thing an Anglican can look at as *de fide *(if that concept exists any more).

Good questions.

GKC