RCC doctrine of the Eucharist

[zeland2236]

Could somebody help me understand the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist as it is current taught in Roman Catholic churches?

From my own understanding, a sacrament is both an outward sign and the inward thing signified joined together that imparts grace. But transubstantiation seems to suggest that the sign is destroyed or ceases to exist. Then how can this be part of a "sacramental worldview" if it requires the nature of a thing to become something else in order to participate in grace?

Also see:

zeland

 

[FireDragon76]

According to my pastor, there is nothing about Lutheran doctrine that would preclude the possibility of Eucharistic miracles, as we also believe Christ is physically present under the bread and wine. But we also believe the bread has a reality of its own, it is not merely an appearance. That's one reason, for instance, that someone with celiac should not receive a communion host made from wheat. It would seem there is not merely an appearance of wheat bread to the senses, but also the physical properties of wheat as well.

 

[Tangible]

grace juice

O serendipitous typo!

 

[FireDragon76]

I think I understand where Catholics are coming from, though it does sound like a different emphasis as compared to how other Christian denominations think of sacramentalism. Years ago I also encountered Pope Benedict XVI writing about the Eucharist and he wrote in similar terms to Schmemann, about the Real Presence as fulfillment. But it would take some work to dig up the reference.

 

[zippy2006]

I think I understand where Catholics are coming from, though it does sound like a different emphasis as compared to how other Christian denominations think of sacramentalism. Years ago I also encountered Pope Benedict XVI writing about the Eucharist and he wrote in similar terms to Schmemann, about the Real Presence as fulfillment. But it would take some work to dig up the reference.

I think what I would say is that a scholastic philosophical explanation of the ontology of transubstantiation does not preclude theological considerations or elaborations. For example, in the Liturgy of the Eucharist the priest says:

Blessed are you, lord God of all creation,
for through your goodness we have received
the bread we offer you:
fruit of the earth and work of human hands,
it will become for us the bread of life.

Blessed are you, lord God of all creation,
for through your goodness we have received
the wine we offer you:
fruit of the vine and work of human hands,
it will become our spiritual drink.​

I don't think the doctrine of transubstantiation undermines the sign-value of the bread and the wine.

 

[Albion]

I don't think the doctrine of transubstantiation undermines the sign-value of the bread and the wine.

If the bread and wine have ceased to exist before the distribution, it surely seems that it would.

 

[FireDragon76]

If the bread and wine have ceased to exist before the distribution, it surely seems that it would.

I don't think that the bread "ceases to exist" is what Catholics are trying to say by this doctrine. I believe it is here we are reaching the limitations of human language in describing the mystery. Obviously, the bread does have a reality to it, which is why the Catholic church, for instance, provides gluten-free bread for those with celiac disease . But this is not the sacramental reality, the one discerned by faith.

 

[Albion]

I don't think that the bread "ceases to exist" is what Catholics are trying to say by this doctrine.

It IS what their Church teaches, however.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It IS what their Church teaches, however.

Yes, and then they do the Aristotelian dance and say that the "accidents" (i.e. bread and wine) remain even though they are no longer really and truly bread and wine.

 

[Albion]

...which I think is the answer to the point made above by FireDragon about special communion hosts being made for victims of celiac disease. IOW, the accidents impact such people, but the substance is totally different.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't think the doctrine of transubstantiation undermines the sign-value of the bread and the wine.

If the bread and wine have ceased to exist before the distribution, it surely seems that it would.

This has already been addressed:

At first blush it seems to me that the accidents of bread and wine are the outward sign that signifies or makes present Christ's body and blood. It seems that the sign is not destroyed insofar as the appearance of bread and wine remain. It is that which they primarily signify that is changed into Christ's body and blood.

I guess I don't clearly perceive the problem. Can you flesh it out?

 

[Panevino]

Could somebody help me understand the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist as it is current taught in Roman Catholic churches?

From my own understanding, a sacrament is both an outward sign and the inward thing signified joined together that imparts grace. But transubstantiation seems to suggest that the sign is destroyed or ceases to exist. Then how can this be part of a "sacramental worldview" if it requires the nature of a thing to become something else in order to participate in grace?

Just thinking aloud but why would it be an issue when at the same time accepting that baptism results in a fundamental change. Or the change of water to wine being a good thing or change in the nature of our physical bodies in the resurrection? Or the change to Jesus body after his resurrection. Or the apostles recognizing Jesus at the blessing/breaking of bread.

 

[Albion]

Just thinking aloud but why would it be an issue when at the same time accepting that baptism results in a fundamental change.

It wasn't the meaning or impact of the sacrament as a sacrament that was at issue.

It was about the changeover of the elements. In Baptism, it's not believed that the water becomes blood or anything else, so this doesn't seem a fair comparison.

Or the change of water to wine being a good thing or change in the nature of our physical bodies in the resurrection?

Those are changes, all right, but they are not part of the alleged changeover in the elements used in the sacrament of the altar. So again, not a parallel situation.

Or the change to Jesus body after his resurrection. Or the apostles recognizing Jesus at the blessing/breaking of bread.

Same as the previous paragraph.

Miracles can happen. Miracles have happened. God can change matter into something else. BUT none of that means that every change that the mind or man can contemplate must therefore have happened.

Unfortunately, people like to believe in miracles, to be able to witness one personally, so they think that believing something to be a miracle that actually is not one is somehow a proof of their religious faith.

 

[Panevino]

It wasn't the meaning or impact of the sacrament as a sacrament that was at issue.

It was about the changeover of the elements. In Baptism, it's not believed that the water becomes blood or anything else, so this doesn't seem a fair comparison.


Those are changes, all right, but they are not part of the alleged changeover in the elements used in the sacrament of the altar. So again, not a parallel situation.


Same as the previous paragraph.

Miracles can happen. Miracles have happened. God can change matter into something else. BUT none of that means that every change that the mind or man can contemplate must therefore have happened.

Unfortunately, people like to believe in miracles, to be able to witness one personally, so they think that believing something to be a miracle that actually is not one is somehow a proof of their religious faith.

That's ok you may of misunderstood what I was addressing. I think the OP had a query about the idea of a change in an existing thing would somehow negate the purpose or fundamental meaning of a sacrament.

 

[Albion]

well, you're right, Panevino. The OP was more focused. He said to help him understand the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist (which he then names--Transubstantiation). Then he asked how, if the physical elements that are part of any sacrament can be eliminated, it's possible for the sacrament to still meet the definition of a sacrament.

It's a point taken up by the (Anglican) Articles of Religion, by the way.

However, my reply to your post doesn't seem totally off topic since none of those parallels you mentioned in your post deal with sacraments.

Maybe if I had not included the last two paragraphs in my post (which were something of an afterthought), it might have been better.

 

[Panevino]

well, you're right, Panevino. The OP was more focused. He said to help him understand the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist (which he then names--Transubstantiation). Then he asked how, if the physical elements that are part of any sacrament can be eliminated, it's possible for the sacrament to still meet the definition of a sacrament.

It's a point taken up by the (Anglican) Articles of Religion, by the way.

However, my reply to your post doesn't seem totally off topic since none of those parallels you mentioned in your post deal with sacraments.

Maybe if I had not included the last two paragraphs in my post (which were something of an afterthought), it might have been better.

Ok
My reference to baptism related to the change in the person baptized.

 

[Albion]

Right. And you and I agree that this is so.

 

[FireDragon76]

Am I correct in understanding that the term "accident" is not part of the Council of Trent's definition of transubstantiation?

 

[zippy2006]

Am I correct in understanding that the term "accident" is not part of the Council of Trent's definition of transubstantiation?

You are correct. It basically says that the conversion of the substance of the bread and wine is fittingly called transubstantiation by the Catholic Church.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are correct. It basically says that the conversion of the substance of the bread and wine is fittingly called transubstantiation by the Catholic Church.

So this isn't simply a baptism of Aristotle's philosophy?

Why then was there so much resistance to the modernist doctrine of transignification?