W
Wannano
Guest
Thank you susanlo for wording your enquiries in understandable language. I hope you get answers that are deserving of the integrity with which you ask.
- Status
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Why do you believe that science would detect differences in the host prior to and after consecration?
Jesus Christ becomes truly and fully present. The change that occurs is that the bread becomes Jesus Christ.
Your questions remind me of John 6:60 (Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”)
I don’t know what is missing in your questions, but I can tell you what was missing in mine when I asked similar questions as you are now. I needed context. I asked myself where does this teaching come from outside of the Last Supper event itself. The reason I asked myself this question was because I had seen the arguments pro-real presence and pro-symbolic expression with the words Jesus spoke when he said ‘This is my body’ at the Last Supper. I wanted collaborating evidence. Then I read John’s Gospel chapter 6 in it’s entirety and a light bulb went on that I can’t turn back off. The diciples said that the saying of eating his flesh was a hard saying and who could accept it. Jesus asks if it shocked them and seems to double down on saying he’s talking about his actual flesh. He doesn’t explain symbolism, he’s explaining reality. And then many of his disciples stopped following him after his explanation. I’m trying to imagine myself following someone I consider the messiah and then have him preaching about crazy ideas like eating his flesh - and not backing down from those comments. Wow! Jesus then asks the apostles if they are also going to leave. Peter says Jesus has the words of eternal life and where else is he to go.
Science does not have the words of eternal life, Jesus Christ does. Science isn’t the arbiter of truth. Jesus Christ is. Science is great at collaborating evidence, but doesn’t absolutely prove or disprove the words or actions of Jesus Christ. If you need absolute proof from science as to whether the bread becomes Jesus, then you’d need absolute proof on every miracle Jesus performs, including the Resurrection itself.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Thank you for that. It always gets confusing when people don’t believe something but find it to be true.
R
rcwitness
Guest
So should the Holy Communion be shared by Christians who have opposing Teachings? If two Christians are Baptized and accept the Holy Spirit, should they both be convicted of opposing Teachings?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Under certain conditions, Catholics allow Eastern and Oriental Orthodox to receive Catholic Holy Communion, even though they have different teachings on several issues such as divorce, birth control, and papal infallibility and others as well. (It should be noted that Eastern Orthodox do not approve of their faithful receiving the Sacraments from the Roman Catholic Church).
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Thank you for that. It always gets confusing when people don’t believe something but find it to be true.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Your fifth statement above pretty much sums up your whole post. You can’t humanly wrap your head around it. If science can’t prove it, it can’t be true.
S
susanlo
Guest
I agree with most of this, but I am confused with the part I put in red. This explanation doesn’t rule out a spiritual interpretation with no substantial change. Does the substance change when descended upon? Or is this something outside of our physical realm, but detectable only on a spiritual level?
I think this type of question is about understanding what a group actually believes. There seems to be inconsistency about what the ‘Real Presence’ is. I think ‘Real Presence’ is a poor word choice because it is so loosely defined. I prefer to use the terms transubstantiation, consubstantiation or what not which have straightforward definitions. Does Catholicism still support transubstantiation?
Many Catholics here seem to think that understanding ‘Real Presence’ is the pinnacle of faith and provides spiritual benefits. “The source and summit of the Christian life” is a frequently seen phrase here. Why shouldn’t one look for a full explanation?
What is the difference between “opposing teachings” and “various customs and practices?” I would argue that all Christians follow the leadership of Christ and obey the teaching in His Word. At my church all baptized believers are welcome to participate in communion because we don’t segregate Christianity. We see all followers of Jesus as united in Christianity. If it weren’t for a Catholic friend of mine, I would still be under the impression that Christianity was “united in leadership, with a common Teaching, while allowing for various customs and practices.” It seems that the concern that Christianity is fractured seems to be the understanding of Catholics, but it is not something I was ever aware of as I happily worshiped at many different denominations over the years with my friends who are my brothers and sisters in Christ.
R
rcwitness
Guest
W
Wesrock
Guest
Catholicism still professes transubstantiation, meaning that the bread and wine are truly changed into Christ’s body and blood while retaining the appearances of bread and wine. The Orthodox profess this change, too, though some shy away from the term transubstantiation due to perceived commitments to Aristotlean-Thomistic metaphysics, though the term does predate the endorsement of A-T metaphysics by the Latin Church. It is just Latin for change-in-substance, substance meaning what it actually is, not its chemical composition.
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s a weird question.
There are lots of things that people believe in around the world. Most people don’t believe in most of them. Generally one needs a reason to believe in something, not a reason not to.
Just to be clear: I believe in the Real Presence and am awaiting word on when I can talk to a priest about being received into the Church.
My own major obstacle to conversion is not a lack of belief in the Real Presence but belief that the Real Presence exists in Protestant churches as well.
Edwin
R
rcwitness
Guest
But isn’t this a testimony to the failure of Protestant Communion? That their Communion doesn’t hold to One Body of Teaching and acceptance of that Teaching? What good is a Communion that is divided over tenants of the faith?
S
susanlo
Guest
This is exactly the point that I find so confusing.
I hear transubstantiation - which means a change of substance. Then I go to my knowledge of substance which is similar to the dictionary.com definitions: **1. that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: 2. a species of matter of definite chemical composition: ** So I take away the point that if a substance changes, we should see a change in physical matter or a different chemical composition. It seems that ‘substance’ in transubstantiation is using a different and quite unique definition of ‘substance.’ That definition seems to vary greatly among those who believe in the ‘Real Presence.’ That is the part that is hard to define and understand.
I don’t find it hard to believe that the elements change in their spiritual significance and could even become holy and blessed in some way. But if there is a change in physical matter or chemical composition, I would expect science to be able to detect this. I honestly think the meaning and significance of the Eucharist is supposed to be much deeper than being limited to just a literal/physical understanding. It seems many who believe in some definition of ‘Real Presence’ also agree with this.
R
rcwitness
Guest
This is why I stay away from trying to define the actual change that takes place, further than Transubstantiation. It’s almost as the host, becomes (while the accidents are in tact) consubstantial with the Son of God. But it’s hidden from our carnal senses.
Explain to me how the senses of the disciples, on the road to Emmaus, were kept from recognizing Jesus? And how were they opened to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread? Was it a miracle? Or did they just happen to not recognize how He looked after the resurrection? And if it was a miracle, what was the purpose of that miracle?
P
Peter_J
Guest
It’s a weird internet IMO.
I don’t believe half of them half as well as I should like, and I think of less than half of them half as well as they deserve.
P
PJM
Guest
THANK you
BUT just as the raisin is actually [REALLY] present, so too is Jesus Himself in Catholic Holy Communion:thumbsup:
GBY
S
susanlo
Guest
Hmmm…I have never thought much about it. I guess there are various things people can understand and take from this account in Luke 24. I guess they could have noticed that His hands had holes in them when they saw Him break bread. Or else they recognized familiarity in the way He broke the bread and gave thanks. Also, God may have allowed their eyes to have been opened at this moment. What was the purpose of them recognizing them at this moment when they hadn’t before? I suppose it may go along with the symbolism of Jesus being the Bread of Life. What understanding do you have?
P
PJM
Guest
OK,
And on what basis besides your personal opinion is that?
Biblical, historical and even scientific evidence and well as the TRUTH all say your worng in your understanding:shrug:
GBY
and thanks for sharing
W
Wesrock
Guest
John the Baptism declared that God could make sons of Abraham from stones, yet if he did no one would say the stones were actually born of men. God has power to subvert the norms of physical laws.
The modern definition of substance is different than what was meant in the original Latin. Perhaps it would be closer in modern terms to speak of a “change in essence.” The point, though, is that in relation to the Eucharist, the normal cues we use to determine what something is are irrelevant. The cues that identify it as bread and wine remain, but in essence it is no longer bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ because God has made it so.
It’s a hard teaching. Catholics see Jesus’ words, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing,” in part as telling us that human reason and thinking (our flesh) will find this change incomprehensible, but that it is a gift of the spirit to believe in it. There’s another topic already on John 6, and I don’t mean to make this one that, too, but it was an opportunity to expand on our understanding of those words in context.
The modern definition of substance is different than what was meant in the original Latin. Perhaps it would be closer in modern terms to speak of a “change in essence.” The point, though, is that in relation to the Eucharist, the normal cues we use to determine what something is are irrelevant. The cues that identify it as bread and wine remain, but in essence it is no longer bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ because God has made it so.
It’s a hard teaching. Catholics see Jesus’ words, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing,” in part as telling us that human reason and thinking (our flesh) will find this change incomprehensible, but that it is a gift of the spirit to believe in it. There’s another topic already on John 6, and I don’t mean to make this one that, too, but it was an opportunity to expand on our understanding of those words in context.
- Status