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

[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?

Not that I know of. Lewis (he is speaking in a fictional passage, but it is assumed to be his voice) is saying that we don’t need to understand how the sacrament is made; that wasn’t what we were told to do. We are told what it is. We eat it.

If the RCC doesn’t profess to know how the change occurs precisely (and I agree they don’t, in detail) it still requires more of an affirmation in that direction than most Anglicans can see justified, particularly given the consequences, in the eyes of the RC, for not affirming it.

BTW, no one seems to have wondered what my view of transubstantiation might be. Any guesses?

GKC

 

[po18guy]

I know some Catholics who laugh at the idea of the wafer and the wine as being real flesh and blood let alone Protestants not thinking it is.

Petty sniping will get you banned like brosam. If you want to learn, ask. If you want to criticize, get a soap box somewhere else.

You would have life within you if you followed John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11.

May Christ’s PEACE be with you.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

GKC,

Thank you for your response.

I suppose I did mean accidental change in the Thomistic sense, and I think it struck you as odd because manifestly the change in question is NOT accidental. That was calculated to further my point that one could accept “a” change occurs but not really be accepting “the” change that in fact does occur.

Your response puzzles me somewhat however. It seems to me that to acknowledge what Our Lord said it was (i.e to acknowledge “the” actual change) is to acknowledge that the bread become His Body. By implication (as you yourself state) the whole substance of the bread becomes His body.

My understanding of Canon II of Session 13 of Trent, would affix the theological certainty to the proposition that “the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining” and NOT to the secondary clause “which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”.

You seem to be asserting that the terminology itself (transubstantiation) is De Fide. Do you? Could you perhaps point us to some sources that indicate this?

It seems to me that the description of the change (i.e. the “kind” of change) is what is De Fide – whole substance into Body, whole substance into blood. And you seem to have acknowledged that one must know the “kind” of change in order to ascribe to “the” change.

Thoughts?
Thank you in advance!
VC

 

[po18guy]

The Jewish REMEMBRANCE is far more than looking back and acknowledging - it means to MAKE PRESENT NOW - TO ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE. Just as today’s Jews don’t look back and REMEMBER Passover but they are actually part of that Passsover that was eaten by Moses, Aaron, etc, etc.

“Why is THIS NIGHT not like other nights” is the wording at the Seder.

Ain’t it difficult discussing church history with someone whose church has the history of a mayfly? Might as well discuss theoretical physics or quantum mechanics. ArgHHHH!!! :crying:

 

[GKC]

GKC,

Thank you for your response.

I suppose I did mean accidental change in the Thomistic sense, and I think it struck you as odd because manifestly the change in question is NOT accidental. That was calculated to further my point that one could accept “a” change occurs but not really be accepting “the” change that in fact does occur.

Your response puzzles me somewhat however. It seems to me that to acknowledge what Our Lord said it was (i.e to acknowledge “the” actual change) is to acknowledge that the bread become His Body. By implication (as you yourself state) the whole substance of the bread becomes His body.

My understanding of Canon II of Session 13 of Trent, would affix the theological certainty to the proposition that “the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining” and NOT to the secondary clause “which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation”.

You seem to be asserting that the terminology itself (transubstantiation) is De Fide. Do you? Could you perhaps point us to some sources that indicate this?

It seems to me that the description of the change (i.e. the “kind” of change) is what is De Fide – whole substance into Body, whole substance into blood. And you seem to have acknowledged that one must know the “kind” of change in order to ascribe to “the” change.

Thoughts?

Thank you in advance!

VC

Other than the second Canon of Session XIII, nothing comes to mind. But yes, that’s how I read it. Can someone find an authoritative ruling on it, i.e. that the concepts of substance/accidents are language of accomodation, perhaps, and not part of the *de fide *dogma? That would be most interesting.

I’m not sure I do acknowledge that one must know the “kind” of change, if that means more than what the scripture says. That it is the Body/Blood. Beyond that, a mystery.

Sorry to be such a puzzle.

GKC

 

[po18guy]

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!!

Always great to hear from you, Big_Dave! But, how frustrating to even try to explain what faithful Catholics gain from the Eucharist. We are always pounded (hounded?) with the exhoration of “FAITH! FAITH! FAITH!” But, the minute we have FAITH that it is the Body of Christ, something has just gone terribly wrong in the universe.

Great to hear geniune witness.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

GKC,

Perhaps we both ought to look into this more then? If I do find out, either way, I would be happy to let you know.

Please do the same for me.

In the meantime, perhaps you might want to leave it as an open question as to whether or not Trent overreached somehow. My view, of course, is that it did not. Rather it defined what “is” is. The canons serve to protect the full import of Christ’s words, protecting it from various kinds of deformation.

Thank you for the discussion. I appreciate your candor and thoughtfullness.

VC

 

[richardwy]

On another thread the question was asked as to how Protestants get around John Chapter 6 and I Corinthians 11 as to Holy Communion.

The vast majority never even think about it. It doesn’t cross their mind. I’m an ex-protestant.

For the rest who are knowed-up, oh gosh, such a tedious scripture twisting follows.

The whole thing bogs down too when tradition is disavowed as well as Christ’s promise to build his Church upon Peter.

If you knock out a wall or two or three, you can still call it a “house” but it is no longer a “house.”

 

[allofgrace]

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!!

Welcome Home Dave!!! I have the same experience and it has been the most wonderful 14 years of my life (came into the Church in 1993). I know very well the GRACES present in the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Confession and the strength given by God to overcome and to transform; the motivation to want ONLY HIS MOST HOLY WILL. I would never leave because even though I had the evangelical type of “relationship with the Lord” from 1967 to 1993 it did not compare to the relationship I have with Him as a Catholic. It was different and not as intimate. I’ve learned a deeper love for the scriptures; the former didn’t compare to the latter. I’ve found a greater sense of family with other Catholics.

 

[allofgrace]

I started this thread in order to show HOW and WHY Luther INVENTED and CHANGED TO CON (with) substantiation. I find it most interesting that I put up the words of Martin Luther as to how and why he did this and there has been absolutely no comment on it at all - just a more or less intellectual prattling showing a CRISIS OF TRUTH. I’m going to post that again and see how it fares this time around…

Martin Luther took it upon himself to CHANGE what the Church had believed for 1500 plus years in a number of things but I will put up here his “reasoning” on the change he made to Holy Communion.

In the initial post I stated that Luther was enamoured with the intellectual arguments of William of Ockam. In Luther’s “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church” he wrote the following:

"Years ago, when I was delving into scholastic theology the Cardinal of Cambray (Pierre d’Ailly, a disciple of Wm of Ockam) gave me food for thought in his comments on the fourth book of the Sentences (The Sentences of Peter Lombard, a book of Medieval theology).

In the book of the Sentences he (Cardinal d’aILLY) argues with great acumen that to hold that real bread and real wine, and not their accidents only, are present on the altar,
IS MUCH MORE PROBABLE AND REQUIRES FEWER UNNECESSARY MIRACLES -- if only the Church had not decreed otherwise.

Luther goes on to state, "When I learned later what church it was that had decreed this — namely the Church of Thomas (Aquinas), i.e. of Aristotle — I WAXED BOLDER AND AFTER FLOATING IN A SEA OF DOUBTat last found rest for my conscience in the above view —, namely, that it is real bread and real wine in which Christ’s real flesh and blood are present, not otherwise and not less really than they assume to be the case under their accidents.

I REACHED THIS CONCLUSION BECAUSE I SAW THAT THE OPINIONS OF THE THOMISTS, though approved by pope and council, remain but opinions and do not become articles of faith even though an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise.

For what is approved without Scripture or an approved revelation, may be held as an opinion but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas (Aquinas) hangs so completely in the air, devoid of Scripture and reason that he seems here to have forgotten both his philosophy and his logic." (End of Luther’s claim as to how he came to deny Transubstantiation and invent CON (with) Substantiation - the Lutheran belief regarding Holy Communion).

You can read it in Luther’s “Babylonian Captivity of the Church.”

I ask you a question. What sort of basis is this to deny the 1500 year belief of the Church and what sort of arrogance does it take to think that you can go against “the pillar and ground of the truth?”

Again I ask; what would happen if a Catholic pope set forth a doctrine on this sort of reasoning? We’d never hear the end of it.

It has been very interesting to me that Catholics stick with the teachings of the Church based on the Bible while the Protestants tend to follow their father, Luther, wishing to be “free” to interpret the Scriptures six ways from Sunday - at will. I can say that as I WAS Protestant for 54 years, taught adult Sunday School and did it exactly that way - in fact was told that I MUST teach the church-line. What we did in Protestantism was to START with a PREMISE, a preconceived belief and MAKE THE BIBLE FIT IT. So much for sola scriptura. I’m a Bible-believer and that’s one of many reasons why I’m CATHOLIC.

 

[rr1213]

I started this thread in order to show HOW and WHY Luther INVENTED and CHANGED TO CON (with) substantiation. I find it most interesting that I put up the words of Martin Luther as to how and why he did this and there has been absolutely no comment on it at all - just a more or less intellectual prattling showing a CRISIS OF TRUTH. I’m going to post that again and see how it fares this time around…

Martin Luther took it upon himself to CHANGE what the Church had believed for 1500 plus years in a number of things but I will put up here his “reasoning” on the change he made to Holy Communion.

In the initial post I stated that Luther was enamoured with the intellectual arguments of William of Ockam. In Luther’s “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church” he wrote the following:

"Years ago, when I was delving into scholastic theology the Cardinal of Cambray (Pierre d’Ailly, a disciple of Wm of Ockam) gave me food for thought in his comments on the fourth book of the Sentences (The Sentences of Peter Lombard, a book of Medieval theology).

In the book of the Sentences he (Cardinal d’aILLY) argues with great acumen that to hold that real bread and real wine, and not their accidents only, are present on the altar,
IS MUCH MORE PROBABLE AND REQUIRES FEWER UNNECESSARY MIRACLES -- if only the Church had not decreed otherwise.

Luther goes on to state, "When I learned later what church it was that had decreed this — namely the Church of Thomas (Aquinas), i.e. of Aristotle — I WAXED BOLDER AND AFTER FLOATING IN A SEA OF DOUBTat last found rest for my conscience in the above view —, namely, that it is real bread and real wine in which Christ’s real flesh and blood are present, not otherwise and not less really than they assume to be the case under their accidents.

I REACHED THIS CONCLUSION BECAUSE I SAW THAT THE OPINIONS OF THE THOMISTS, though approved by pope and council, remain but opinions and do not become articles of faith even though an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise.

For what is approved without Scripture or an approved revelation, may be held as an opinion but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas (Aquinas) hangs so completely in the air, devoid of Scripture and reason that he seems here to have forgotten both his philosophy and his logic." (End of Luther’s claim as to how he came to deny Transubstantiation and invent CON (with) Substantiation - the Lutheran belief regarding Holy Communion).

You can read it in Luther’s “Babylonian Captivity of the Church.”

I ask you a question. What sort of basis is this to deny the 1500 year belief of the Church and what sort of arrogance does it take to think that you can go against “the pillar and ground of the truth?”

Again I ask; what would happen if a Catholic pope set forth a doctrine on this sort of reasoning? We’d never hear the end of it.

It has been very interesting to me that Catholics stick with the teachings of the Church based on the Bible while the Protestants tend to follow their father, Luther, wishing to be “free” to interpret the Scriptures six ways from Sunday - at will. I can say that as I WAS Protestant for 54 years, taught adult Sunday School and did it exactly that way - in fact was told that I MUST teach the church-line. What we did in Protestantism was to START with a PREMISE, a preconceived belief and MAKE THE BIBLE FIT IT. So much for sola scriptura. I’m a Bible-believer and that’s one of many reasons why I’m CATHOLIC.

What’s the point? Luther clearly rejected the authority of Popes and Councils when he believed that their pronouncements were contrary to Scripture (sola fide). E.G.: “For what is approved without Scripture or an approved revelation, may be held as an opinion but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas (Aquinas) hangs so completely in the air, devoid of Scripture and reason that he seems here to have forgotten both his philosophy and his logic.” Luther believed in this instance that the Church was not acting Scripturally by adopting Greek concepts of “accidents” and “substance” (which, by the way, nobody today–outside of the issue of transubstantiation at least–believes to accurately describe the way the world works). He knew from Scripture that both the bread and wine and the body and blood were present in the consecrated host, so the Lutheran understanding of the sacramental union is a better description of what happens. It would have been even better for everyone involved if the Church had left a miraculous miracle as the mystery is truely is and not tried to define everything.

 

[GKC]

GKC,

Perhaps we both ought to look into this more then? If I do find out, either way, I would be happy to let you know.

Please do the same for me.

Certainly.

In the meantime, perhaps you might want to leave it as an open question as to whether or not Trent overreached somehow. My view, of course, is that it did not. Rather it defined what “is” is. The canons serve to protect the full import of Christ’s words, protecting it from various kinds of deformation.

I think I already have a fairly open mind with regard to Trent, but one might always do better. At one point I was fairly well up on Trent, history of all those years and everything; decrees being of equal interest with canons . But the mind loses grip, over time.

I think I see it as more of defining how what is, is, answering the question “if this is the Body of Christ, why does it look like bread?”. Not a question I need to ask.

Thank you for the discussion. I appreciate your candor and thoughtfullness.

VC

Back at you, *frater.

Pax tecum*

GKC

 

[allofgrace]

What’s the point? Luther clearly rejected the authority of Popes and Councils when he believed that their pronouncements were contrary to Scripture (sola fide). E.G.: “For what is approved without Scripture or an approved revelation, may be held as an opinion but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas (Aquinas) hangs so completely in the air, devoid of Scripture and reason that he seems here to have forgotten both his philosophy and his logic.” Luther believed in this instance that the Church was not acting Scripturally by adopting Greek concepts of “accidents” and “substance” (which, by the way, nobody today–outside of the issue of transubstantiation at least–believes to accurately describe the way the world works). He knew from Scripture that both the bread and wine and the body and blood were present in the consecrated host, so the Lutheran understanding of the sacramental union is a better description of what happens. It would have been even better for everyone involved if the Church had left a miraculous miracle as the mystery is truely is and not tried to define everything.

Thank you for the seguay - the very thing I wanted to point out. Luther states that this was “devoid of Scripture and reason” but what the Church declared WAS NOT devoid of Scripture and reason. It was what *****LUTHER DID WITH IT *****which he claimed to do BY SCRIPTURE ALONE that is the actual scandal.

Let’s look at Luther’s Catechism to see how he comes up with that statement.

Luther’s Catechism gives the following
THE INSTITUTION OF HOLY COMMUNION

First: What is the sacrament of Holy Communion?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ for us Christians to eat and to drink.

Where is this written?

**The holy Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, **

and the Apostle Paul tell us: Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Then he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

This is Luther’s full answer as to where Holy Communion is written in the Scriptures.

Do you see the deception?

 

[rr1213]

Thank you for the seguay - the very thing I wanted to point out. Luther states that this was “devoid of Scripture and reason” but what the Church declared WAS NOT devoid of Scripture and reason. It was what *****LUTHER DID WITH IT *****which he claimed to do BY SCRIPTURE ALONE that is the actual scandal.

Let’s look at Luther’s Catechism to see how he comes up with that statement.

Luther’s Catechism gives the following
THE INSTITUTION OF HOLY COMMUNION

First: What is the sacrament of Holy Communion?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ for us Christians to eat and to drink.

Where is this written?

**The holy Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, **

and the Apostle Paul tell us: Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Then he took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

This is Luther’s full answer as to where Holy Communion is written in the Scriptures.

Do you see the deception?

No, there is no deception. First, the quotation is from the Luther’s Small Catechism which was written for the use of fathers to teach their children. As a learning device for children, it was not intended to be all encompassing. You can find a much more in depth discussion of the Sacrament of the Altar in the Large Cathechism.

Second, even in the Small Catechism, Luther was not asserting that the Gospels are the only place where the Eucharist is addressed in Scripture. Why do I say that? Because it is obviously addressed in many other places of Scripture–most especially Corinthians–and, if nothing else, Luther was familiar with Scripture.

Why do I say that the Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist is more true to Scripture than the Catholic model of transubstantiation? Because of the testimony of 1 Corinthians 11:26–“whenever you eat this BREAD and drink this CUP, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”–which tell us that the bread and wine remain in the Sacrament…not just their “accidents”.

 

[paarsurrey]

“unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood …you have no life within you”

Hi

I think it makes no sense if it is taken literally; it must be symbolic.

Thanks

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hi

I think it makes no sense if it is taken literally; it must be symbolic.

Thanks

It isn’t. 70 Disciples left Jesus never to return to him again because of this belief was hard saying. Yes, the appearance of Bread and Wine remains, but we Catholics believe as well as Orthodox that the Blessed Eucharist is Jesus Christ. This belief has been held by the Catholic Church for over 2,000 yrs.

 

[YADA]

Do this for the remembrance of me.

Actually it is Do this [as often as you do it] **in remembrancce of me. **

Dom Gregory Dix because, in his book, The Shape of the Liturgy [1945], a book that covered the theory of anamnesis. Dom Gregory, stating the theory explicitly in his book, gives his opinion that in our usage ‘remembrance’ or ‘memorial’ have the meaning only of mental recollection of something that is absent. So he wished to maintain that in antiquity there was a more dynamic understanding, ‘… we have to take account of the clear understanding then general in a largely Greek-speaking church of the word anamnesis as meaning a “re-calling” or “re-presenting” of a thing in such a way that it is not so much regarded as being “absent”, as itself presently operative by its effects. This is a sense which the Latin memoria and its cognates do not adequately translate.’ Dix goes on to apply this meaning to eucharist, ‘It is in this active sense, therefore, of “re-calling” or “re-presenting” before God the sacrifice of Christ, and thus making it here and now operative by its effects in the communicants that the eucharist is regarded both by the New Testament and by second century writers as the anamnesis of the passion, or of the passion and resurrection combined.’
Dix gives three texts in support of the anamnesis theory - Numbers 5:15; 1 Kings 17:18 & Hebrews 10:3-4. In these texts Dix wished to translate anamnesis as ‘re-call’ but in fact the Hebrew lying behind the Septuagint text clearly means ‘remembrance’ in one form or another. For example,1 Kings 17:18 is translated by Dix as - “the widow of Sarepta complains that Elijah has come ‘to “re-call” to (God’s) remembrance my iniquity’, and therefore her son has died.” In the NEB it is translated, ‘What made you interfere, you man of God? You came here to bring my sins to light and kill my son.’ Here the hiphil of zkr is used in a sense apparently meaning ‘to accuse’ before God*.* We may note that Westcott pointed out in his commentary on Hebrews 10:3-4 that anamn‘sis hamartiÇn meant in that passage ‘a calling to mind of sins.’ .
In the case of the second century writers to whom Dix appeals, it is well known that their expression of eucharist is quite realist. Ignatius, Justin and Irenaeus give clear instances of this usage. So Justin says that the eucharist ‘… is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.’ But none of the pre-Nicene writers put forward any theory of what they supposed was happening in eucharist. They were writing in response to challenges from gnostics and pagans and were simply concerned to state that the Christian eucharist was really about worship with the crucified and living Lord.

From the earliest chruch’s teachings and beliefs, the Eucharist is not just ‘symbolic’ but something so much more…the symbol myth is very new…IMHO and from my study

 

[GKC]

Actually it is Do this [as often as you do it] **in remembrancce of me. **

From the earliest chruch’s teachings and beliefs, the Eucharist is not just ‘symbolic’ but something so much more…the symbol myth is very new…IMHO and from my study

Dom Gregory Dix - one of my favorite Anglicans.

GKC

 

[YADA]

Dom Gregory Dix - one of my favorite Anglicans.

GKC

Dix seems to recognize the historical context very well, though some use his work as a launch [spring board] to a new, more modern understanding…

This page here discusses Jewish Seder with Catholic participation bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/center/news/nh_J-C_seder04.htm

and the following is a quote from the link:

Jews who invite Christians to share in a Seder can expect that the Exodus story is familiar to them. The Jewish conviction that at the Seder past events become present today is something that can resonate strongly with Catholics. The Catholic concept of anamnesis corresponds to the Hebrew term zecher*. Both refer to the use of ritual to make the past a lived present reality.*

 

[GKC]

“Dix seems to recognize the historical context very well, though some use his work as a launch [spring board] to a new, more modern understanding…”

So I have heard.

Still, his little mini essay in praise of the Eucharist is a delight.

GKC