- Status
G
GKC
Guest
I doubt that. As I understand it, the doctrine is not “material” presence", but (per Trent) “substantial” presence, material appertaining to the physical realm, of the senses. I could be wrong.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
No, I believe that the RCC teaches a substantial, not a material presence. Per Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1.
GKC
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
I’ve read it before. I’m old.
Can you find me a definitive, de fide statement that teaches that the RCC believes that Christ is materially present in the Eucharist?
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
J
jrtrent
Guest
It appears my terminology was too loose. I read “It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. . . by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.” (CCC 1375, 1376). From this, I thought that the physical bread and wine that you take to eat and drink have become the body and blood of Christ, that Christ is present in a physical way, not just spiritual. The words I used were simply synonyms in English for the same thing; that is, physical, material, substantial, corporeal, tangible, etc., all mean the same thing. I didn’t know their was a distinction between material and substantial. I’ll have to read Aidanbradypop’s link when I get back later this evening.
G
GKC
Guest
The terms are technical, relating to Aristotelian metaphysics. It is a substantial presence, not a spiritual one.
GKC
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
More references from the CCC:
1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood.
1350 The presentation of the offerings (the Offertory). Then, sometimes in procession, the bread and wine are brought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood.
1381 “That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.’ For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.’), St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.’ ”
Will post more when I find more time
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
ThanksMore references from the CCC:
1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood.
1350 The presentation of the offerings (the Offertory). Then, sometimes in procession, the bread and wine are brought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood.
1381 “That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.’ For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 (‘This is my body which is given for you.’), St. Cyril says: ‘Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.’ ”
Will post more when I find more time
J
jrtrent
Guest
So a substantial presence is neither material nor spiritual. Why do I get the feeling that this is going to make my head hurt?
Here’s a blurb from Wikipedia:
“The Roman Catholic Church declares that the doctrine of transubstantiation is concerned with what is changed, and not how the change occurs; it teaches that the appearances (the “species”) that remain are real, not an illusion, and that Christ is “really, truly, and substantially present” in the Eucharist.[44] To touch the smallest particle of the host or the smallest droplet from the chalice is to touch Jesus Christ himself, as when one person touches another on the back of the hand with only a fingertip and in so doing touches not merely a few skin cells but touches the whole person:”
It sounds as though the presence is material, or, if that term has connotations I haven’t read about yet, the presence is physical. That is, Jesus’s body and blood can be looked at, touched, lifted, eaten in a physically real way. Transubstantiation doesn’t mean just the idea of Jesus, but includes a physical reality you can put your hands on.
I read several articles, and found one that is easy for me to follow and addresses some interesting points. One is his contrast of Catholic teaching on the corporeal presence of Christ against what he says is mostly an Anglican concept of “real presence” that is spiritual in nature.
"Catholics believe in a corporeal, substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The whole Christ is present, body, blood soul and divinity. It is not just a spiritual presence. Furthermore Catholics believe in an objective presence–not one which is only available to those who receive in faith. . .
So the term ‘real presence’ has–from the start–been used as an alternative to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Not only did Latimer and Ridley use ‘real presence’ to deny transubstantiation, but so did the seventeenth century ‘high church’ Anglican divine Jeremy Taylor who used the term ‘real presence’ as a contrast to transubstantiation . . .
So what should Catholics do when confronted with this confusing term ‘real presence’? First of all Catholics should realise that it is not a Catholic term at all. It’s history is mostly Anglican, and as such it was always used as a way to adroitly sidestep the troublesome doctrine of transubstantiation; and as such it is not an accurate term to describe true Catholic Eucharistic doctrine."
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/what-do-we-mean-by-the-real-presence
G
GKC
Guest
Neither material, nor physical. You are far off. You cannot touch the substance (technical term). You can only touch the accidents (another technical term).
It is possible I could lead you into this a little. I’ve done similar things before. But for several reasons, I won’t be doing so. This is a specifically RC concept you are struggling with. While I probably understand it well enough, I might still lead you astray. You need the tutoring of a patient and knowledgeable RC. And while I have no particular problem with transsub, it’s not something I find necessary to affirm, as the Orthodox, who have a similar doctrine of the Real Presence, do not try to define its “mechanics”, precisely. RP is a what, transub a how. If pressed, I’d call it the most noble effort to express and grasp what is happening as one can find, given human limitations. But I would not make transub de fide. Never the less, I say what Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1 says. Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Truly, really, substantially. That is, the confected Sacrament is fully worthy of receiving latria
I would remind you of something (if I am remembering aright). IIRC, some time past, you made reference to a time when you believed that RCs worshiped Mary. Then you got some insight into some distinctions and terminology, and (I may be recalling this wrong) no longer believe that. In similar fashion, you do not understand the concept of what the RCs are saying about the RP/transubstantiation. Perhaps someone here can assist in that.
Fr. Longnecker is an Episcopalian convert. Works about 100 miles from me. More or less.
GKC
K
Kathryn_Ann
Guest
Hi, SteveVH. What an excellent question.:angel1: Here is what I think:
First, I might state that the teaching is actually that “The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the faith.” catholicdoors.com/misc/apologetics/pillar.htm
If I understand your question though, it it one of emphasis on exactly what different people believe about the Church’s teaching on Holy Eucharist and what this means to us. We believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, while others do not. Some believe it is a symbol.
Yet, since Christ said we are to partake of Him in this most Holy Sacrament, we either choose to believe what He said, literally, or we do not. At the Last Supper, The Bible says that many did not believe Him and turned away, but Peter* did* believe Him and took Him (The Word Incarnate) at His Word.
Some people come to their conclusions because of what they are taught. Some are given little instruction at all and have erroneous ideas. Others are taught well and still deny Christ’s words. Christ could have said “Oh, it’s all right, I didn’t mean it literally.” But he didn’t. “We consume Christ, so that He consumes us.” is the saying. So, I believe we must help others to understand this central teaching of the Church.
As far as a “deal breaker” goes, in answer to your question, while I know that Catholics must believe in the Real Presence, we must not judge others who have not been instructed. As a Catholic convert, I know I was never given proper instruction as a child or young adult. How I wish one of my Catholic cousins had explained things to me! It took decades of seeking and searching to come to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Thank God for His patience with me!
Some will come to the truth if instructed. God will judge those who are given the truth and denying it, turn away. I believe that Christ would want us to be so loving, so full of the spirit of good will, and so welcoming that people will draw closer to Him and His truth. God is often more patient than we are.
I think that people in a position to instruct others are held to a higher accountability, though. I tend to have more patience with genuine seekers than with various cult leaders or “new age” gurus who teach error and falsehoods to unsuspecting people. I think that if people truly see the joy of Christ and His Holy Church in us, if we partake of Him in Holy Eucharist, that they will be drawn to the fullness of the Catholic faith.
All blessings
Kathryn Ann:heaven:
S
SteveVH
Guest
Yes, of course we know that the Church is the pillar and foundation, or bulwark of the faith. But that faith finds both its source and summit in the Eucharist because it is Christ himself:
“The Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life’. The other sacraments and indeed all ecclesial ministries and works of the apostolate are bound up with Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.” (CCC par 1324)
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
jr,
While I do affirm the Catholic teaching on the Bread and Wine in regards to the body of Christ. I also confirm that it is something out of the realm of my understanding.
I believe with all my heart and all my mind (in its limitations), in the Real Presence and that the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of our Lord.
In the event you would like to read more on the Catholic position on this subject, I humbly offer this links:
catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence
ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/chfatheuch.HTM
calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/
therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
Keep in mind that on those links you will find much better explanations that I can provide.
Also keep in mind that as a Catholic, not only do I embrace the Church’s position on this mystery and miracle, but I also seek spiritual union with my Lord in His presence on This Blessed sacrament.
Peace,
Jose
While I do affirm the Catholic teaching on the Bread and Wine in regards to the body of Christ. I also confirm that it is something out of the realm of my understanding.
I believe with all my heart and all my mind (in its limitations), in the Real Presence and that the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of our Lord.
In the event you would like to read more on the Catholic position on this subject, I humbly offer this links:
catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence
ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/chfatheuch.HTM
calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/
therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
Keep in mind that on those links you will find much better explanations that I can provide.
Also keep in mind that as a Catholic, not only do I embrace the Church’s position on this mystery and miracle, but I also seek spiritual union with my Lord in His presence on This Blessed sacrament.
Peace,
Jose
J
jrtrent
Guest
It’s nice to know I’m not alone in that.
Yes, that was my understanding of the Catholic teaching, too. That it may look and feel like bread and wine, but after consecration it is no longer bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ. His presence is real not just spiritually, but in the body and blood that is right there in front of you, and that the priest presents and gives to you.
Thanks for the articles you provided links to. I found another that presents several different Eucharistic theological understandings. Their simple definition is what I had always assumed to be true:
Transubstantiation refers to the fact that the substance of bread and wine are annihilated and cease to exist at the moment of consecration. The substance of the bread and wine disappears and is replaced by the substance of Jesus Christ’s body and blood. The Eucharistic elements are no longer bread and wine, and are really the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
They do not appear to be anything other than bread and wine, however. This appearance is referred to as the accidents.
The important points to note about transubstantiation are that;
The Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ
Jesus Christ is really present in a physical way
The substance of bread and wine are not there any longer
catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/2b.htm
In searching out information on the topic, I found a few similar statements from Catholic sources saying that Christ is present in a physical way. However, as GKC has pointed out, it’s not as simple as it seems. In opposing the charge that the Eucharist is tantamount to cannibalism, one of the articles you linked to said, “On the contrary, this objection assumes the error of reducing the Eucharistic reception to a purely physical process. In the Eucharist Christ is not received physically, but spiritually and sacramentally . . .”
Now, being received “spiritually and sacramentally” sounds like my Anglican view of the Lord’s Supper, and appeared to be a flat denial of everything that preceded it in the article, but there was a link provided for further information that said, “The substance of the host has been changed into the risen Body of Christ which although fully corporeal and real, does not physically belong to this universe.” calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/real-presence-does-it-mean-cannibalism/
Out of the realm of my understanding, for sure.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
It is truly wonderful and I thank God everyday that I am able to partake in Holy Eucharist.
What are your views on adoration? Or is that for another day?
J
jrtrent
Guest
The excerpt from the rubric on kneeling, which is part of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, that I posted a page or two back gives what I believe on adoration. Here is that rubric in its entirety.
Whereas it is ordained in this office for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue); yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is here declared, that thereby no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one. churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/book-of-common-prayer/the-lord’s-supper-or-holy-communion.aspx
The last parts of Article XXVIII that you posted earlier also touches on this:
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
- Status