Transubstantiation- bread and wine are symbols?

  • Thread starter Thread starter concerneduser
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

concerneduser

Guest
According to what I have read here by Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (who also composed the Nicene Creed) that bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

circa 350 A.D.: St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Catecheses, Lecture 22, ss. 1,3-6,9
(cf. Lecture 19, s. 7; Lecture 23, ss. 20-23)
On the night he was betrayed out Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: Take, eat: this is my body.'' He took the cup, gave thanks and said: Take, drink: this is my blood.’’ Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question and say that it is not his blood?
Therefore, is is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us under the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and one blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.
Once, when speaking to the Jews, Christ said: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life in you. This horrified them and they left him. Not understandoing his words ina spiritual way, they thought the Savior wished them to practice cannibalism.
Under the old dispensation there was showbread, but it came to an end with the old dispensation to which it belonged. Under the new covenant there is bread from heaven and the cup of salvation. These sanctify both soul and body, the bread being adapted to the sanctification of the body, the Word, to the sanctification of the soul.
Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.
You have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ. You know also how David referred to this long ago when he sang: Bread gives strength to man’s heart and makes his face shine with the oil of gladness. Strengthen your heart, then, by receiving this bread as spriritual bread, and bring joy to the face of your soul.
May purity of conscience remove the veil from the face of your soul so that by contemplating the glory of the Lord, as in a mirror, you may be transformed from glory to glory in Christ Jesus our Lord. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
—So??? Your opinion, is this a denial of transubstantiation? As the bread and wine are mere symbols? Does the current Catholic church teach the bread and wine during mass to be symbols of the body and blood of Christ as St. Cyril just did?
 
The doctrine of Transubstantiation states that we receive the body of the Lord (or are “given the body of the Lord,” according to St. Cyril) under the APPEARANCE of Bread and Wine.

What’s the difference?

Blessings
 
“Under the appearance of bread and wine” is just that. As with all things involving faith, things are not as they appear.

“Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1

They appear to us as bread and wine, just as they did to the Apostles at the Last Supper, but they are in fact what Christ says they are - they are HIM. Our transformation into children of God is a spiritual and physical process - a journey made possible only by Christ and through Christ. This is why all the sacraments have physical and spiritual dimensions to them, most especially the greatest sacrament - the Eucharist.
 
“Under the appearance of bread and wine” is just that. As with all things involving faith, things are not as they appear.

“Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1

They appear to us as bread and wine, just as they did to the Apostles at the Last Supper, but they are in fact what Christ says they are - they are HIM. Our transformation into children of God is a spiritual and physical process - a journey made possible only by Christ and through Christ. This is why all the sacraments have physical and spiritual dimensions to them, most especially the greatest sacrament - the Eucharist.
 
We receive Him under the appearance (symbol) of bread and wine. Just as the Creed as a Symbol of Faith is a sign of recognition and communion of Christians and of the believer’s identity as a Christian, so too the bread and wine is a sign of faith and communion with Christ and of the believer’s identity as a spouse of Christ. We do not believe in forumlas but in the realities they express; we do not believe in bread and wine but the Lord who is present.
 
I don’t see how you could interpret this any other way than describing transubstantiation
Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.
You have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Concerneduser,

I think you answered your own question with the line you highlighted:
His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us under the symbol of wine
Click to expand...
His body IS given to us under the [appearance] of bread…and his blood IS given to us under the [appearance] of wine.

Remember, Christ said “This IS my body”, He didn’t say it is a “symbol” of His body, or a “representation” of His body, or a simile or metaphor or whatever. He also said that we must eat of the flesh and drink of the blood of the Son of Man to have life within us…Obviously the people who he was speaking to took him literally, because instead of nodding and smiling and winking to each other, a bunch of them were grossed out at the thought, and stopped believing in him.
 
I agree, further down in the passage, the question is answered. Saint Cyril clearly believed (and showed that other Christians believed) that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, under the symbol (appearance) of bread and wine.
 
The Greek word “symbolos” does not mean a mere empty sign that “symbol” has come to mean in English. (This word properly should be “emblem”.)

The Greek word implies a bringing together (syn - bolos) of two realities, in this case the reality of the bread and wine with the reality of the Body and Blood of Christ.
 
Cluny said:
The Greek word “symbolos” does not mean a mere empty sign that “symbol” has come to mean in English. (This word properly should be “emblem”.)

The Greek word implies a bringing together (syn - bolos) of two realities, in this case the reality of the bread and wine with the reality of the Body and Blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that true bread and wine still remain after the Prayers that ask the Holy Spirit to transform, make, transmute, or change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ?

Blessings
 
No, two completely separate things cannot exist in the same space together. Only their images remain, their substance is 100% Jesus. Because, how many people do you know who would actually eat it if they saw a chunk of bleeding heart being handed to them? ❤️
 
redroses098 said:
No, two completely separate things cannot exist in the same space together. Only their images remain, their substance is 100% Jesus. Because, how many people do you know who would actually eat it if they saw a chunk of bleeding heart being handed to them? ❤️
Click to expand...
Scholastic language uses the term “accidents” not images. Aquainis gives us the term “transubstantiation” to explain what happens to the bread and wine. The substance of the elements are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, but the accidents of the elements remain, those accidents are the symbol. It still looks like bread and wine, still tastes like bread and wine, if you tested it the results would come out bread and wine, but in reality we know in faith that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus. Christ is not just
in" the bread and wine as that would be consubstantiation. As Cluny stated, you have to kow the ancient understanding of symbol for this to make sense. A symbol, in this case “is” what it signifies, the real, substantial presence of Christ, no longer bread and wine.
 
In theology the term “symbol” refers to a reality that is present. What happens in English is that we confuse “symbol” with “sign” – something that points to something else. For the early Church the word did not have that connotation. A symbol was a reality. The “symbol” of darkness and light, for example, was not something that pointed to something else but was, in fact, a reality they could understand.

The Eucharist is both sign and symbol. It is sign in that it points to the heavenly banquet, it is symbol in that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus who is the Christ present under the forms of bread and wine.

And, yes, the Scholastics referred to accident (the physical properties) and substance (the ousia or nature) of the thing in question. Thus, in the action we call transubstantiation we have two miracles: we have Jesus substantially present under the form of bread and wine and we have the accidents of bread and wine present without their substance. Jesus is really and truly present. There is no bread, there is no wine, there is only Jesus.

I hope this helps…

Deacon Ed
 
redroses098 said:
No, two completely separate things cannot exist in the same space together. Only their images remain, their substance is 100% Jesus. Because, how many people do you know who would actually eat it if they saw a chunk of bleeding heart being handed to them? ❤️
Click to expand...
So, someone couldn’t be 100% God and 100% man…😛

The Governor General of Canada recently ate a chunk of bleeding heart publicly, and it was very controversial. Not perhaps a good thing for the Church to try.
 
Bluegoat said:
So, someone couldn’t be 100% God and 100% man…😛
Click to expand...
That’s not the proper comparison, if you mean by “man,” corruptible man. What occurrs to the nature/essence/substance of Bread and Wine is more akin to what occurs to our nature/essence/substance upon glorification. The very Nature is changed. When Jesus appeared to His Apostles after the Resurrection, He was/is fully God and fully man, but at that point, the human nature had been divinized and nothing of its original nature (i.e., corruptibility) remained. When Jesus appeared to his Apostles, he had the form of man, but nothing of the nature/essence/substance of man (since that nature/essence/substance had already been transformed).

That’s exactly what happens in the Eucharist. After the Holy Spirit changes it, It has the FORM of bread, but not the SUBSTANCE/essence/nature of bread.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
That’s not the proper comparison, if you mean by “man,” corruptible man. What occurrs to the nature/essence/substance of Bread and Wine is more akin to what occurs to our nature/essence/substance upon glorification. The very Nature is changed. When Jesus appeared to His Apostles after the Resurrection, He was/is fully God and fully man, but at that point, the human nature had been divinized and nothing of its original nature (i.e., corruptibility) remained. When Jesus appeared to his Apostles, he had the form of man, but nothing of the nature/essence/substance of man (since that nature/essence/substance had already been transformed).

That’s exactly what happens in the Eucharist. After the Holy Spirit changes it, It has the FORM of bread, but not the SUBSTANCE/essence/nature of bread.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
It is very dangerous to say our nature has been fundamentally changed upon being glorified - it is fundamentally fulfilled, which has entirely different connotations. To say nothing of it’s original nature remained is simply inaccurate.
 
Here’s one for you: Prior to his death on the cross, Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. After his ressurection, was this still true? If so, would the Eucarist also be 100% man and 100% God?
 
Deacon_Ed said:
In theology the term “symbol” refers to a reality that is present. What happens in English is that we confuse “symbol” with “sign” – something that points to something else. For the early Church the word did not have that connotation. A symbol was a reality. The “symbol” of darkness and light, for example, was not something that pointed to something else but was, in fact, a reality they could understand.

The Eucharist is both sign and symbol. It is sign in that it points to the heavenly banquet, it is symbol in that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus who is the Christ present under the forms of bread and wine.

And, yes, the Scholastics referred to accident (the physical properties) and substance (the ousia or nature) of the thing in question. Thus, in the action we call transubstantiation we have two miracles: we have Jesus substantially present under the form of bread and wine and we have the accidents of bread and wine present without their substance. Jesus is really and truly present. There is no bread, there is no wine, there is only Jesus.

I hope this helps…

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Thank you, Deacon Ed!
 
Bluegoat said:
It is very dangerous to say our nature has been fundamentally changed upon being glorified - it is fundamentally fulfilled, which has entirely different connotations. To say nothing of it’s original nature remained is simply inaccurate.
Click to expand...
I explained exactly what I meant - I was referring to the corruptibility of our nature. Do you think there is any corruptibility left in a glorified body? Believing so would be the more dangerous belief, don’t you think?

Blessings
 
concerneduser said:
So??? Your opinion, is this a denial of transubstantiation? As the bread and wine are mere symbols? Does the current Catholic church teach the bread and wine during mass to be symbols of the body and blood of Christ as St. Cyril just did?
Click to expand...
First, be sure of what Saint Cyril actually taught. Would he be declared a Saint in the Catholic Church, or rather a heretic, if he directly opposed Church teaching on the Eucharist? Caution must be used if, say one simply Googles for “symbol” and then latches onto whatever pops up. Remember that Saint Cyril did not speak English, so the words you read are a translation of what he actually said.

Didn’t he say, in the first part of the sentence, that the actual Body and Blood are given us? “His body is given to us…” and “His blood is given to us…” Yes. We get into trouble when we read too much into the rest of the sentence. When we highlight that one sentence and separate it from the rest of his speech, it can be taken to mean almost anything. But, place it in the context of the entirety of his words, and the meaning is clear.

We do not worship a “sound bite” God. We worship a big picture God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top