Another Dire Reformation Is Needed

[Ignatius21]

Christians should all return to the Church Jesus started. No one doubted the reality of Christ's presence in the Eucharist for at least 1000 years. The early Christians are unanimous on this point. The Catholic Church(and Orthodox Churches) has never changed this teaching of the apostles.

There is some disagreement within Orthodoxy about whether the RCC changed the doctrine of the real presence. Fundamentally, yes, both believe the same thing that come down to us in Scripture and through the teachings of the apostles and the earliest Fathers (and thanks to my patron Ignatius of Antioch and his nifty little epistles for opening my eyes to that).

The nuances as to "how" the elements become the body and blood were kicked around in a variety of ways. Honestly I believe I can see how, via different paths, Christians arrived at the views they hold (that is, I can see how one could arrive at the Roman and Lutheran views). The Orthodox generally don't have one view that we hold up in opposition to others. We just kinda burn incense and say "It is the body and blood" and are content with not understanding it.

Likewise both Rome and the East understand that the eucharist is not a repetition of the sacrifice, but rather the (literal) re-presentation, or the "making present of" the one sacrifice across time and space. In worship, we are made present to God!

The issue is in the formal and "infallible" definitions that arose much later in history, codified after the schism. Transubstantiation, in my analysis is not a change of the apostolic doctrine, but one very particular and heavily scholastic way of understanding it that is inseparable from the resurgence of Aristotelian philosophy in the "middle" ages.

I have heard some Catholics say that for the East to have communion with Rome, all must accept transubstantiation (among many other things) exactly as worded and taught in the various post-schism councils and catechisms. Others take a broader "spirit, not just the letter" approach recognizing that it makes no sense for non-Roman churches to accept a formulation that's grounded in a philosophical and academic grid that was never a part of those churches' history.

So what say you? Does the formal promulgation of transubstantiation as dogma, mean that one cannot be in communion with Rome unless one changes his whole worldview and accepts the entire scholastic and philosophical system in which transubstantiation arose?

(and again, views differ on "our" side also. Some, like me, see that the basic kernel of "real presence" is held in common, but that Rome went much further, in a VERY specific direction and considerably later in history, in defining it. Others insist that transubstantiation is actually a change in the apostolic teaching and therefore not valid).

 

[catholichomeschooler]

There is some disagreement within Orthodoxy about whether the RCC changed the doctrine of the real presence. Fundamentally, yes, both believe the same thing that come down to us in Scripture and through the teachings of the apostles and the earliest Fathers (and thanks to my patron Ignatius of Antioch and his nifty little epistles for opening my eyes to that).

The nuances as to "how" the elements become the body and blood were kicked around in a variety of ways. Honestly I believe I can see how, via different paths, Christians arrived at the views they hold (that is, I can see how one could arrive at the Roman and Lutheran views). The Orthodox generally don't have one view that we hold up in opposition to others. We just kinda burn incense and say "It is the body and blood" and are content with not understanding it.

Likewise both Rome and the East understand that the eucharist is not a repetition of the sacrifice, but rather the (literal) re-presentation, or the "making present of" the one sacrifice across time and space. In worship, we are made present to God!

The issue is in the formal and "infallible" definitions that arose much later in history, codified after the schism. Transubstantiation, in my analysis is not a change of the apostolic doctrine, but one very particular and heavily scholastic way of understanding it that is inseparable from the resurgence of Aristotelian philosophy in the "middle" ages.

I have heard some Catholics say that for the East to have communion with Rome, all must accept transubstantiation (among many other things) exactly as worded and taught in the various post-schism councils and catechisms. Others take a broader "spirit, not just the letter" approach recognizing that it makes no sense for non-Roman churches to accept a formulation that's grounded in a philosophical and academic grid that was never a part of those churches' history.

So what say you? Does the formal promulgation of transubstantiation as dogma, mean that one cannot be in communion with Rome unless one changes his whole worldview and accepts the entire scholastic and philosophical system in which transubstantiation arose?

(and again, views differ on "our" side also. Some, like me, see that the basic kernel of "real presence" is held in common, but that Rome went much further, in a VERY specific direction and considerably later in history, in defining it. Others insist that transubstantiation is actually a change in the apostolic teaching and therefore not valid).

Transubstantiation is merely an attempt to describe the mystery of the real presence. The Church concedes that it is a mystery beyond human comprehension.

Here are a couple of relevant passages from the Catechism.

Is there anything here that you would disagree with?



333 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. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took the cup filled with wine. . . ." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.155


1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

 

[Tangible]

Christians should all return to the Church Jesus started. No one doubted the reality of Christ's presence in the Eucharist for at least 1000 years. The early Christians are unanimous on this point. The Catholic Church(and Orthodox Churches) has never changed this teaching of the apostles.

Look at a full-grown tree, at the outermost buds on the smallest twigs on the highest branches. Now tell me which one is the trunk.

We cannot return to the Original Church because it no longer exists. Over time, by division and schism it has become tree-like, with no single terminus being identical to the root. Simultaneously, all branches share a common origin in the root and can be called a part of the OHC&A Church.

Of course, I believe that the Confessional Lutheran church is the most direct line of ascent/descent. But that is a matter of conscience.

 

[Tangible]

333 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 /is proclaimed to be/ Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took the cup filled with wine. . . ." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.155


1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God [demonstrably false], and this holy Council now declares again, that 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

As early as St. Paul, we have the consecrated elements being called, and rightly so, bread and wine. The substance of the elements never goes away, even when the Real Presence of the Body and Blood are proclaimed.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

333 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 /is proclaimed to be/ Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took the cup filled with wine. . . ." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.155


1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God [demonstrably false], and this holy Council now declares again, that 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

As early as St. Paul, we have the consecrated elements being called, and rightly so, bread and wine. The substance of the elements never goes away, even when the Real Presence of the Body and Blood are proclaimed.

The body and blood of Jesus becomes the bread and wine, just as the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus.

Paul made this very clear, as does the Catholic Church:

1 Cor 11
27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.


1 Cor 10
16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

All of which confirms what Jesus told the apostles:

John 6
55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

 

[Targaryen]

We cannot return to the Original Church because it no longer exists. Over time, by division and schism it has become tree-like, with no single terminus being identical to the root. Simultaneously, all branches share a common origin in the root and can be called a part of the OHC&A Church.

 

[Ignatius21]

Transubstantiation is merely an attempt to describe the mystery of the real presence. The Church concedes that it is a mystery beyond human comprehension.

Here are a couple of relevant passages from the Catechism.

Is there anything here that you would disagree with?



333 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. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took the cup filled with wine. . . ." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine,154 fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.155


1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

What I would disagree with is the notion that the Church has "always" held the conviction as expressed here. The language of Trent, and then in the Catechism, makes no sense apart from the scholastic theology of the middle ages, which is heavily grounded in the language and categories of Aristotelian logic. Even the terms "species," "substance," and "accidens" (not used in the above quote but part and parcel of the Roman dogma) are taken straight from Aristotle.

One cannot put forth a dogma, to be held on pain of excommunication, that is dependent upon a particular philosophical framework without also necessitating that all Christians first accept that framework. Thus my confusion at the Byzantine Rite Catholics, who (in my experience) essentially nod at the RCC's infallible dogmas while basically continuing on as Eastern Christians in doctrine, philosophy and liturgy.

Even the Lutheran expression (sometimes called "consubstantation" though not all Lutherans seem to like that word) is dependent upon the same categories of logic...it just comes to a different conclusion.

Frankly, if one presupposes this Aristotelian grid, and then imposes it upon earlier fathers, I think both "trans" and "con" can be substantiated (forgive the pun) from the writings of the early church, because they really never were terribly thorough or exhaustive in their treatment of it. They worshipped the mystery and received it, and proclaimed it. They really didn't explain it.

This podcast kinda captures what I'm getting at: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/paradiseutopia/the_new_christendom_v

I doubt anyone will take the 40 minutes to listen, but it's well spent if you do.

Many Orthodox will say the Catholic (and Lutheran) explanations of real presence are wrong. I don't know that I can say they are WRONG...rather they are unnecessary.

So sayz me, anyway.

 

[Tangible]

"In, with and under" is not meant to be an explanation of the Real Presence but merely a description. Lutherans confess the Real Presence, but explicitly and categorically refuse to attempt to explain how it works.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

"In, with and under" is not meant to be an explanation of the Real Presence but merely a description. Lutherans confess the Real Presence, but explicitly and categorically refuse to attempt to explain how it works.

Indeed. The terms con and trans substantiation imply a quantitative view of the Eucharist. "In, with and under" is a confession of what we believe. As you stated earlier Tangible, St Paul calls it both, but gives us no explanation of how or why. As Luther also said regarding the Eucharist: "it is what it is"; and that is about all we can say about it too.

 

[Schroeder]

You do realize what the definition of 'discerning' is don't you? It means to recognize as different.

St. Paul says that those who fail to recognize that Christ IS PRESENT in the bread and wine eat and drink damnation upon themselves. To fail to see that the bread and wine are different is to eat and drink condemnation upon yourself. THAT is what the verse actually says. This isn't 'my interpretation' of Scripture, but it IS exactly what the words say.

The real question is how you can use this passage to 'prove' that the words don't say what they say?

Peace in Christ

except that isn't what it said is it. And i am sure there are plenty of those who do this eurcharist in sin and don't get weak and sick. But if one fails to live in the spirit in there lives they truly can. John 6 shows this thinking or type of anology speaks to the spirit.