Transubstantiation and Real Presence

[Wannano]

Because Baptism and belief bring some into the life of Jesus.

But do all Christians accept His Teachings about Communion? If there is one Bread (loaf) then there would be unity among belief. As it is, there is division. And there is division because of our hardness of hearts. I wish I knew the answers my friend. All we can do is follow what we each are convicted of. And we must accept our crosses and await His judgment. I am striving to overcome sin, and receive His body and blood in a worthy manner. It is an impossible task on our own power. We must be so humble, and always convert to do what is right.

I am not meaning to cause frustration. To me there is only one loaf, made up of ground up individual kernels of wheat, some big, some small, some fat , some skinny but all ground up losing their distinctiveness to create total unity in becoming one loaf, His loaf, His Church, the Bride He is coming back for. I agree, all we can do is follow what we are each convicted of…and trust Him, and be accountable for ultimately ourselves only.

 

[Wannano]

Because Baptism and belief bring some into the life of Jesus

But if the literal Catholic teaching is applied does not this answer negate Jesus’ own words as we previously discussed?

 

[Wannano]

Glad I don’t have to answer that. The only answer I can give to the OP was in post #30.

I don’t think you answered her post 45 though.

 

[Vico]

What do you think about the souls of infants and toddlers who were baptized at the Catholic church, but have not come of age to receive communion? Do they receive life at baptism or first communion?

You may find it interesting that the Byzantine Catholic sacramental discipline is to give all three mysteries of Christian Initiation at the same time, even to infants. These are given in this order: baptism, chrysmation, and communion. It is through the Holy Mystery of Baptism, that we become regenerated into the divine life of God’s children in Jesus Christ and living members of His Church. Chrismation is our participation in the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The Lord said to ‘let the little children come to me’ (Mt 19:14), so the Church administers the three Holy Mysteries of Christian initiation to infants.

St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6. (Ancient Christian Writers, p. 57)
“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”

 

[rcwitness]

What do you think about the souls of infants and toddlers who were baptized at the Catholic church, but have not come of age to receive communion? Do they receive life at baptism or first communion?

We do not know what happens to the souls of infants unBaptized. We do know that Baptism brings the promise of forgiveness of sins, justification, and acceptance into the Church. What anyone does with that grace depends on their choices from then on.

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t think you answered her post 45 though.

Sorry, I thought you said #46.

 

[Wannano]

Sorry, I thought you said #46.

I thought the unanswered questions in 46 were addressed to you, my mistake.

I wish we would make more effort to directly answer questions asked rather than deviate down another path with part of the thought.

You gave Susanlo a s ort of answer above to her post in 45, but in my opinion you did not directly answer her question at all.

I think I have read that the O’s give the Eucharist to the baby at baptism which makes sense to me if I were to agree to the literal viewpoint that one must physically EAT the body and blood of Christ to have eternal life. :twocents:

 

[rcwitness]

But if the literal Catholic teaching is applied does not this answer negate Jesus’ own words as we previously discussed?

I think some distinctions need to be made. Jesus, at the time of the Bread of Life discourse, was answering the Jew’s challenge. They were telling Him that Moses gave them Manna in the wilderness. Then they asked what He would give. He told them God gave them Manna, and He would give them His body and blood.

Now where you and I can agree, I think, is that He doesn’t separate His Teachings from receiving His body and blood. So receiving His body and blood is also receiving His Teachings. But they are not necessarily one and the same thing. His body and blood is His real flesh and blood, while His Teachings are His Word.

When John, in the beginning of his Gospel says “…the Word became flesh” he was making this profound connection.

So when a professing Christian makes a decision to believe, they must follow the command to partake of the Lord’s Supper. When they do this, they are submitting to the leadership which gives them Communion. They also give them a body of doctrine which they say is from Jesus.

It gets complicated with Christians divided from His one Eucharist, because that also means they are divided from His one Teaching. But the Catechism addresses this principle here:
818*"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . ... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819*"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274*Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

838*"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

 

[tee_eff_em]

I think I have read that the O’s give the Eucharist to the baby at baptism which makes sense to me if I were to agree to the literal viewpoint that one must physically EAT the body and blood of Christ to have eternal life. :twocents:

tl;dr

If by *“the O’s” *you mean “the Orthodox” or “the Oriental Catholics”(?), they do eucharize infants. The western Church too may eucharize infants in danger of death.

For what it is worth.

tee

 

[rcwitness]

When were the Jews (Isrealites) given life? At the first passover or with Manna in the wilderness?

You see? Jesus saved us on Calvary, and that power sustains us through His Eucharist.

 

[Wannano]

tl;dr

If by *“the O’s” *you mean “the Orthodox” or “the Oriental Catholics”(?), they do eucharize infants. The western Church too may eucharize infants in danger of death.

For what it is worth.

tee

All of this “stuff” is confusing to me. Please forgive me if I sound flippant but aren’t we in danger of death every second we are alive? Even infants? If I were convinced that infant baptism is necessary and truly the way to save that infant, I would insist that it would be baptized the very same moment it draws the very first breath.

 

[rcwitness]

All of this “stuff” is confusing to me. Please forgive me if I sound flippant but aren’t we in danger of death every second we are alive? Even infants? If I were convinced that infant baptism is necessary and truly the way to save that infant, I would insist that it would be baptized the very same moment it draws the very first breath.

No need to be so fearful. The desire and intention to receive Baptism already places one in a state of grace. When I went to the Church to seek “membership” (Baptism, Confirmation, Communion), I did not get Baptized for a year and a half. I went through the steps of learning, believing, accepting, and following Jesus along the way.

And this is actually the metaphoric meaning of receiving His body and blood that I can agree with you! Amen!

But it eventually comes to the place in the road where Jesus is telling us, “take and eat, all of you. This is my body and blood. The blood of the new and eternal covenant”.

So a parent who has the intention and desire to Baptize their child is placing them in the grace of Christ already.

 

[Wannano]

When were the Jews (Isrealites) given life? At the first passover or with Manna in the wilderness?

You see? Jesus saved us on Calvary, and that power sustains us through His Eucharist.

At the risk of losing you as a friend, getting booted off of CAF and sounding sacreligious I truly, genuinely wish Jesus would have explained that in uncertain terms at the Last Supper. It would be so understandable if He had said," this Eucharist is the ritual I want to you partake of repeatedly for it is the power that will sustain you in your new life". Instead He said to do this in remembrance of Him. The power that sustains us in our spiritual journey is the Holy Spirit.

Peace

 

[Wannano]

No need to be so fearful. The desire and intention to receive Baptism already places one in a state of grace. When I went to the Church to seek “membership” (Baptism, Confirmation, Communion), I did not get Baptized for a year and a half. I went through the steps of learning, believing, accepting, and following Jesus along the way.

And this is actually the metaphoric meaning of receiving His body and blood that I can agree with you! Amen!

But it eventually comes to the place in the road where Jesus is telling us, “take and eat, all of you. This is my body and blood. The blood of the new and eternal covenant”.

So a parent who has the intention and desire to Baptize their child is placing them in the grace of Christ already.

I believe I understand your processes. The intention and desire of the parent covers the infants needs up to the time of baptism. In your case your own intent and desire covered you for a year and a half until you were baptized. Isn’t it interesting that early church practice was to baptize immediately upon repentance and confession.

In terms of desire and intent of the parents placing the child in a state of grace, how long is that state of grace valid? If baptism is delayed until the child is older, how long can it be before the child falls out of grace?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

At the risk of losing you as a friend, getting booted off of CAF and sounding sacreligious I truly, genuinely wish Jesus would have explained that in uncertain terms at the Last Supper. It would be so understandable if He had said," this Eucharist is the ritual I want to you partake of repeatedly for it is the power that will sustain you in your new life". Instead He said to do this in remembrance of Him. The power that sustains us in our spiritual journey is the Holy Spirit.

Peace

Good point Wann

But he also said:

Matthew 28:20New Living Translation (NLT)

20 Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

Notice what it does not say:

Teach these new disciples to obey only those things that will be written, according to their own private interpretations of them. I am with you always, but not through Holy Communion, because it’s only a symbolic ordinance.

 

[rcwitness]

At the risk of losing you as a friend, getting booted off of CAF and sounding sacreligious I truly, genuinely wish Jesus would have explained that in uncertain terms at the Last Supper. It would be so understandable if He had said," this Eucharist is the ritual I want to you partake of repeatedly for it is the power that will sustain you in your new life". Instead He said to do this in remembrance of Him. The power that sustains us in our spiritual journey is the Holy Spirit.

Peace

You won’t lose my friendship that easy!

Your comment begs the question, “Is His Spirit opposed to His body and blood, or is the Spirit given to us through Jesus coming in the flesh and accomplishing the will of the Father?”

When we “do this in remembrance of Me” we are doing two things.
First we are participating in the Lord’s Supper, and secondly we are doing it while bringing to mind and heart what He did for us. The first part involves obedience to His command and on His part, descending on the gift of bread and wine to change them from ordinary (or carnal) food, into Spiritual food (His body and blood). The second part is the state of mind and heart we are called to receive in (worthy through self examination and being washed of sins through repentance).

So while Communion is a “thanksgiving” on our part, we actually receive something from God, since we actually eat something. We are not giving thanks for mere carnal food, but the food of Jesus coming in the flesh to reconcile sinners with the father through His life, death, and resurrection.

 

[rcwitness]

I believe I understand your processes. The intention and desire of the parent covers the infants needs up to the time of baptism. In your case your own intent and desire covered you for a year and a half until you were baptized. Isn’t it interesting that early church practice was to baptize immediately upon repentance and confession.

My RCIA director gave me the option to be Baptized rather quickly, or to wait until the next year long class to prepare the candidates. I think what is more interesting, is that in the days of the Apostles, the new converts devoted themselves to the Teachings of the Apostles. Now days, there are a variety of teachings to “choose from”.

In terms of desire and intent of the parents placing the child in a state of grace, how long is that state of grace valid? If baptism is delayed until the child is older, how long can it be before the child falls out of grace?

Desire and intent do not have a “legalistic” measurement. It is what it is. If there are intentions and anticipation to do so, then there will be plans and preparation. None of the Sacraments should be done “out of fear of death”, though maybe in preparation for death. But primarily, they are a preparation for a greater and eternal life.

There should be no intentions to “delay” Baptism, but rather “prepare” oneself or child to receive.

 

[Richca]

In what ways do the bread and wine actually change?

The bread and wine change at the level of substance which is distinguished from the accidents. Transubstantiation means a change of substance, the whole substance. In traditional catholic philosophy and metaphysics, the substance of the bread for example is a composite of two essential principles or components, namely, the substantial form and matter. The substantial form of bread and matter constitute the substance of bread. Bread also has accidents such as quantity or dimensions and extension, color, taste, weight, etc. Substantial forms are what make a thing to be the kind of thing it is such as bread, wine, horse, dog, human being; they give some thing its specific nature or species. Matter is that out of which material things are made out of. In itself, matter is indeterminate and essentially potentiality. Substantial forms determine and organize the matter to be the matter of some kind of thing.

In the transubstantiation of the bread for example, the whole substance of the bread changes. This involves a change in the substantial form of the bread and the matter of the bread because it is these two elements that compose the substance of the bread. The whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of the body of Christ. The substance of the body of Christ is also composed of a substantial form and matter. As the Church teaches, the soul is the form of the body (cf. the CCC), so the substantial form of the bread is changed into the substantial form of Christ’s body which is his soul and the matter of the bread is changed into the matter of Christ’s body. The substance of Christ’s body is hidden under the accidents or appearances of the bread which remain after the consecration.

The same applies to the consecration of the wine.

 

[Richca]

Are there any other examples where the accidents of an object do not match what the substance is?

No. Transubstantiation is a one of a kind change involving only the eucharistic miracle. It is a miracle performed by God’s almighty power in which he suspends the laws of nature.

 

[Peter_J]

I think there is unity among the denominations, and the Catechism definitely acknowledges this. But His Eucharist table is the outward sign of full unity.

My only difficult understanding of the Catholic position, is the fact that Jesus says “…Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;*he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…”
If the literal Communion understanding is applied, how do those who reject the Catholic Communion have life in them, without contradicting what Jesus says?

Still, the symbolic only Communion interpretation lacks significant conformity to this passage and the Lord’s Supper. So I am convicted to devote to the Catholic Communion, as there is greater unity behind the Catholic Teaching.

Indeed. But then, Catholics are NFs, Non-Fundamentalists.