Eucharistic Miracles

[concretecamper]

You're confusing your verses, there was no bread or wine present in John 6

of course there wasn't. Why do you think there should have been?

 

[Eloy Craft]

No more free bread and fish.

Jesus asked the 12 if they were going to leave too. No more free food is why?

 

[Fervent]

Jesus asked the 12 if they were going to leave too. No more free food is why?

Pretty much, since at that point he made it clear that those who threw their lot in with Him weren't going to have a life of comfort and easy blessings but one of austerity.

 

[disciple Clint]

“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Matt 26:26

“So 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. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.” 1 Cor 11:27-29

“Is” just means is. With the Eucharist we’re provided, for one thing, a means by which we can honestly face the question regularly as to whether or not we’re partaking of God worthily, whether or not the relationship is sound, whether communion with Him is valid or a mockery due to how we live. If we’re living by the flesh in some grave and gross manner that opposes love of God and neighbor, partaking would be a joke. He’s really there. That’s of great benefit for us to know.

What "is" your answer???????????

 

[Eloy Craft]

I think it's pretty cool if the Lutheran illuminated Eucharist miracle is authentic.
I like that the manifestations seem to be in accordance with what was believed.
The Real Presence manifests light for Lutherans.
Catholic hosts manifest living human flesh.
Seems fitting and peculiar at the same time, possibly a hidden view of the power to bind.and loose?

 

[fhansen]

What "is" your answer???????????

I gave it!!!!!!!!!!! In that and every post.

He’s really there, in the Host, not just symbolically represented by it. That’s why Communion was and is held with such unparalleled reverence and placed at center stage of every celebration, of the Mass, because it’s the act of partaking of, communing with, God. I don’t examine myself to see if I’m worthy of communing with a symbol. This is My body.

 

[fhansen]

I'm not really taking any position, I just made an observation about the argument you put forth, and then disputed your claim about there being a unified view among the ECF. Clement and Tertullian both expressly refer to the elements as symbolic, and there are several authors who never use the word symbolic but seem to understand the Eucharist as a representation/symbol. More often than not the writings of the ECF do not have a single unified viewpoint and claims of such unity are historical lensing rather than actual engagement with the writings.

I can cut and paste a bunch of of ECFs who viewed it just as the churches in the east and west viewed it from the beginning, and have continued to until this day, that in the Eucharist Christ is truly and uniquely present with us in the flesh. And this was never a controversy either; one will not hear a single objection to that notion from antiquity.

 

[Fervent]

I can cut and paste a bunch of of ECFs who viewed it just as the churches in the east and west viewed it from the beginning, and have continued to until this day, that in the Eucharist Christ is truly and uniquely present with us in the flesh. And this was never a controversy either; one will not hear a single objection to that notion from antiquity.

Cutting and pasting generally isn't real support, especially when there are centuries of additional context being read into the quotations. Yes, there are early writers who supported something like a modern notion of real presence but it wasn't a universal teaching as there are writers who also wrote of symbolic interpretations of the elements. You claim there is uniformity in the teaching, but the reality is that most of the "support" brought forward from the ancients are not truly saying what they are being made to say when they are stripped of the context of the letters they are found in to comment on a discussion that the authors did not see themselves having a part in. It's ahistorical lensing, where modern ideas are read into ancient documents, rather than the documents themselves addressing the idea.

 

[fhansen]

Cutting and pasting generally isn't real support, especially when there are centuries of additional context being read into the quotations. Yes, there are early writers who supported something like a modern notion of real presence but it wasn't a universal teaching as there are writers who also wrote of symbolic interpretations of the elements. You claim there is uniformity in the teaching, but the reality is that most of the "support" brought forward from the ancients are not truly saying what they are being made to say when they are stripped of the context of the letters they are found in to comment on a discussion that the authors did not see themselves having a part in. It's ahistorical lensing, where modern ideas are read into ancient documents, rather than the documents themselves addressing the idea.

And I'd submit that the lensing is on your side, on the side of anti-Catholcism whererever one might possibly be able to find a way to support some speculation that opposes it. Me and my bible; we got it all figured out. Throw the baby out with the bath water, why not? Luther was reluctant to do so, and so he at least kept two sacraments including Holy Communion. But now, as a result of "scholarly" questioning/speculation, Protestantism has taken the church from the partaking of the bread and wine at every service as the central part of that service along with Scripture readings, to many putting it totally off on the sidelines.

And that's a pity, completely inconsistent with history no matter which lense one starts with. So we have this crazy situation where the beliefs and practices of the chruch are questioned at every turn, even though, as is so often the case, the various eastern churches just "happen" to believe and practice the same, believing in the RP in this case by whatever name, with the same kind of reverence towards the host resulting, regardless of whether or not any teachings on it were later officially "formulated" by them. The objections are all nonsense. I'll paste one quote anyway:

"Assemble on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist: but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23—24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, “Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations” [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

 

[Fervent]

And I'd submit that the lensing is on your side, on the side of anti-Catholcism whererever one might possibly be able to find a way to support some speculation that opposes it. Me and my bible; we got it all figured out. Throw the baby out with the bath water, why not? Luther was reluctant to do so, and so he at least kept two sacraments including Holy Communion. But now, as a result of "scholarly" questioning/speculation, Protestantism has taken the church from the partaking of the bread and wine at every service as the central part of that service along with Scripture readings, to many putting it totally off on the sidelines.

And that's a pity, completely inconsistent with history no matter which lense one starts with. So we have this crazy situation where the beliefs and practices of the chruch are questioned at every turn, even though, as is so often the case, the various eastern churches just "happen" to believe and practice the same, believing in the RP in this case by whatever name, with the same kind of reverence towards the host resulting, regardless of whether or not any teachings on it were later officially "formulated" by them. The objections are all nonsense. I'll paste one quote anyway:

"Assemble on the Lord’s Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist: but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23—24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, “Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations” [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

That's quite the screed. Put simply, the Eastern churches do not believe the same thing as the Catholic church teaches which is why they don't recognize Catholic administration. The dispute over "real presence" is a thoroughly aristotlean dispute, arising from thomist synthesis.

Your quote shows a perfect example of the ahistorical lensing I'm speaking of since a proper translation is "brek bread and give thanks" not "offer the eucharist" as there's no reason to break eucharisthsate into "offer" and then leave eucharist untranslated, but since the texts meaning is less important than how it may be put into service for modern viewpoints in modern controversies. There's also a major issue even in trying to put it into service as you have because according to Catholic theology Christ is the one offering the sacrifice, but the didache speaks of the recipient presenting an offer to Christ so it is not speaking of the bread and wine as the sacrifice but the act of submission to it. Putting texts wantonly into service without concern for the context brings you dangerously close to sacrilidge in this case as if the bread and wine are the sacrifice, then it is a sacrifice presented to Christ and thus dependent on the offerer's personal merit and not a reception of grace on the part of the one taking communion.

 

[fhansen]

That's quite the screed. Put simply, the Eastern churches do not believe the same thing as the Catholic church teaches which is why they don't recognize Catholic administration. The dispute over "real presence" is a thoroughly aristotlean dispute, arising from thomist synthesis.

Nonsense, except, perhaps, to someone not particularly interested in the truth of the matter, for whatever reason. And failure to recognize the “Catholic administration” has exactly nothing to do with whether or not east and west agree on this matter. The Eastern churches believe: That the actual body and blood of Christ are wholly present in the Eucharist, that the Holy Spirit causes this to happen with/at the Anaphora, that the Eucharist is the center of not only the service, but of the Christian life. Not many Protestants smoke that brand, while distancing from it, such as with yourself here, has led to the present situation where Evangelicals place the Eucharist on the sidelines at best, totally unheard of in the early church. The Eastern and Catholic Churches agree on many such things that Protestants either reject or disagree with each other on: baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, justification, the lack of absolute assurance of salvation, the potential need for confession/reconcilation, the sacraments in general, liturgical practices, prayers for the dead, etc. Failure to recognize that fact may well constitute blasphemy of the HS. Oprah, Dr Phil, and Howard Stern might not be all that impressed as well.

Your quote shows a perfect example of the ahistorical lensing I'm speaking of since a proper translation is "brek bread and give thanks" not "offer the eucharist" as there's no reason to break eucharisthsate into "offer" and then leave eucharist untranslated, but since the texts meaning is less important than how it may be put into service for modern viewpoints in modern controversies. There's also a major issue even in trying to put it into service as you have because according to Catholic theology Christ is the one offering the sacrifice, but the didache speaks of the recipient presenting an offer to Christ so it is not speaking of the bread and wine as the sacrifice but the act of submission to it. Putting texts wantonly into service without concern for the context brings you dangerously close to sacrilidge in this case as if the bread and wine are the sacrifice, then it is a sacrifice presented to Christ and thus dependent on the offerer's personal merit and not a reception of grace on the part of the one taking communion.

The sacrifice is taught to be made to God, by Christ with humanity in conjunction with Him. So we offer the sacrifice at every Mass where the Eucharist “makes present the one sacrifice of Christ” (CCC1366), as a re-presentation of the sacrifice once for all accomplished on Calvary, recognizing abnd participating in our unending need of that universal gift. Either way, as said, many ECFs can be quoted to support this, none to deny it:

“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand. . . .He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles”. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv. Heresies [A.D. 189])

Sacrilege, LOL.

 

[Fervent]

Nonsense, except, perhaps, to someone not particularly interested in the truth of the matter, for whatever reason. And failure to recognize the “Catholic administration” has exactly nothing to do with whether or not east and west agree on this matter. The Eastern churches believe: That the actual body and blood of Christ are wholly present in the Eucharist, that the Holy Spirit causes this to happen with/at the Anaphora, that the Eucharist is the center of not only the service, but of the Christian life. Not many Protestants smoke that brand, while distancing from it, such as with yourself here, has led to the present situation where Evangelicals place the Eucharist on the sidelines at best, totally unheard of in the early church. The Eastern and Catholic Churches agree on many such things that Protestants either reject or disagree with each other on: baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, justification, the lack of absolute assurance of salvation, the potential need for confession/reconcilation, the sacraments in general, liturgical practices, prayers for the dead, etc. Failure to recognize that fact may well constitute blasphemy of the HS. Oprah, Dr Phil, and Howard Stern might not be all that impressed as well.

While there has been some expression of agreement from the EO towards the Catholic view, they are not identical and in fact the central question between memorialists and people who speak of a "real presence" isn't fully elaborated in Eastern theology due to Eastern theology not moving into the Aristotlean metaphysics that gave rise to the question at hand. After all, the Catholics do not teach that the bread and wine become physical flesh and blood but that the Aristotlean "substance" transforms into Christ's flesh and blood. The expressions of agreement from the Eastern church largely are due to not fully understanding what the question is because EO still rely largely on Platonic metaphysical views that do not address accidents and substance.

The sacrifice is taught to be made to God, by Christ with humanity in conjunction with Him. So we offer the sacrifice at every Mass where the Eucharist “makes present the one sacrifice of Christ” (CCC1366), as a re-presentation of the sacrifice once for all accomplished on Calvary, recognizing our unending need of that universal gift. Either way, as said, many ECFs can be quoted to support this, none to deny it:

“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand. . . .He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles”. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv. Heresies [A.D. 189])

Sacrilege, LOL.

The quote from the Didache involves a sacrifice to Christ on the part of the parishoner. And adding more irrelevant quotes which you read the issue into doesn't strengthen your cause, all they do is show that you either do not have a grasp on the underlying question or you do not care what the original authors were actually discussing and only care for what you can make them say.

 

[fhansen]

While there has been some expression of agreement from the EO towards the Catholic view, they are not identical and in fact the central question between memorialists and people who speak of a "real presence" isn't fully elaborated in Eastern theology due to Eastern theology not moving into the Aristotlean metaphysics that gave rise to the question at hand.

They teach the same thing fro all practical purposes: "a rose is a rose". They just haven't bothered attempting to explain the matter as exhaustively, while the East is a bit harder to nail down anyway due to the lack of a universal cathechism. And I believe that the CC for its part accepts all Eastern teachings other than that involving authority, of course.

After all, the Catholics do not teach that the bread and wine become physical flesh and blood but that the Aristotlean "substance" transforms into Christ's flesh and blood. The expressions of agreement from the Eastern church largely are due to not fully understanding what the question is because EO still rely largely on Platonic metaphysical views that do not address accidents and substance.

The fact that both believe that Christ is truly present in the bread and wine is incontrovertible IMO, and the topic of this thread. The rest is pretty much fluff as I see it. No one cares about the "how" when they're receiving Him.

The quote from the Didache involves a sacrifice to Christ on the part of the parishoner. And adding more irrelevant quotes which you read the issue into doesn't strengthen your cause, all they do is show that you either do not have a grasp on the underlying question or you do not care what the original authors were actually discussing and only care for what you can make them say.

Of course, the problem is my lense, not yours, even though the Eastern and CC also happen to pretty well agree on it, even after centuries of isolation whereas the Reformers, going by Scripture alone, pretty much began to disagree immediately on this and other issues. But best to just dismiss as irrelevant anything that interferes with anti-Catholic bias or preconceived preferred opinions I guess. Personally I think it's time to admit that your emperor has no clothes on this matter. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Fervent]

They teach the same thing fro all practical purposes: "a rose is a rose". They just haven't bothered attempting to explain the matter as exhaustively, while the East is a bit harder to nail down anyway due to the lack of a universal cathechism. And I believe that the CC for its part accepts all Eastern teachings other than that involving authority, of course.
The fact that both believe that Christ is truly present in the bread and wine is incontrovertible IMO, and the topic of this thread. The rest is pretty much fluff as I see it. No one cares about the "how" when they're receiving Him.

They don't teach the same thing because they are conceived completely differently. "Real presence" as you are presenting it is a thoroughly aristotlean question, because it has to do with what the "substance" of the elements is. Except as the EO do not even consider aristotlean substance vs accident there is no authoritative teaching on the issue, they simply do not consider it. So to say "they teach the same thing" is thoroughly bunk, as the question is dependent on a philosophical construct they don't interact with.

Of course, the problem is my lense, not yours, even though the Eastern and CC also happen to pretty well agree on it, even after centuries of isolation whereas the Reformers, going by Scripture alone, pretty much began to disagree immediately on this and other issues. But best to just dismiss as irrelevant anything that interferes with anti-Catholic bias or preconceived preferred opinions I guess. Personally I think it's time to admit that your emperor has no clothes on this matter. But that's just my opinion.

When you probe a document for answers to a question that isn't addressed within it, yes the problem is your ahistorical lens because the author couldn't have had the question in mind since it didn't enter t he discussion for centuries. The notion of "real presence" depends on Aristotlean metaphysics which did not gain any kind of foot hold until early scholastic theology which is why it is a problem of the middle ages. While there may be some way to infer what the earlier writers may have fallen in the dispute that is a far more involved process than simply pulling quotes out of documents where the question at hand wasn't even considered.

 

[fhansen]

They don't teach the same thing because they are conceived completely differently. "Real presence" as you are presenting it is a thoroughly aristotlean question, because it has to do with what the "substance" of the elements is. Except as the EO do not even consider aristotlean substance vs accident there is no authoritative teaching on the issue, they simply do not consider it. So to say "they teach the same thing" is thoroughly bunk, as the question is dependent on a philosophical construct they don't interact with.



When you probe a document for answers to a question that isn't addressed within it, yes the problem is your ahistorical lens because the author couldn't have had the question in mind since it didn't enter t he discussion for centuries. The notion of "real presence" depends on Aristotlean metaphysics which did not gain any kind of foot hold until early scholastic theology which is why it is a problem of the middle ages. While there may be some way to infer what the earlier writers may have fallen in the dispute that is a far more involved process than simply pulling quotes out of documents where the question at hand wasn't even considered.

Ok, I'll have to think yer over-complicating things here, for whatever reason- and just need a little more incubation time.

 

[Fervent]

Ok, I'll have to think yer over-complicating things here, for whatever reason- and just need a little more incubation time.

I'm not complicating anything, the debate around the "real presence" is a discussion of the "substance" of the bread in Aristotlean terms. It's the question of does the bread remain "bread" in essence, does its essence change entirely to "Christ," or does Christ's essence exist alongside the essence of the bread. Given that the ECF did not deal with Aristotlean forms and essence/substance and accidents any input from them must come by way of detailed analysis and a bit of speculation. The EO, while quick to agree with the words "real presence" largely do not fully grasp the issue at hand and there is no official teaching that deals with Aristotlean forms, so they too are essentially silent. What complicates even more is now most ontologies reflect a more naive/monist sensibility which does not distinguish between accidents and substance in any way so many wrongly believe that transubstantiation means becoming physical flesh and blood in a tangible way rather than a shift in essence, largely leading to rejecting the notion out of hand(or worse creating a superstitious belief.) It's inappropriate to use documents/witnesses who are not directly commenting on an issue at hand as implying their support for said issue, and so looking to the ECFs and EO for a dispute they have no part in is completely inappropriate.

 

[fhansen]

I'm not complicating anything, the debate around the "real presence" is a discussion of the "substance" of the bread in Aristotlean terms. It's the question of does the bread remain "bread" in essence, does its essence change entirely to "Christ," or does Christ's essence exist alongside the essence of the bread. Given that the ECF did not deal with Aristotlean forms and essence/substance and accidents any input from them must come by way of detailed analysis and a bit of speculation. The EO, while quick to agree with the words "real presence" largely do not fully grasp the issue at hand and there is no official teaching that deals with Aristotlean forms, so they too are essentially silent. What complicates even more is now most ontologies reflect a more naive/monist sensibility which does not distinguish between accidents and substance in any way so many wrongly believe that transubstantiation means becoming physical flesh and blood in a tangible way rather than a shift in essence, largely leading to rejecting the notion out of hand(or worse creating a superstitious belief.) It's inappropriate to use documents/witnesses who are not directly commenting on an issue at hand as implying their support for said issue, and so looking to the ECFs and EO for a dispute they have no part in is completely inappropriate.

Ok, cept they both believe that Jesus is really present in the host, all nuances, perceived or otherwise, aside.

 

[Fervent]

Ok, cept they both believe that Jesus is really present in the host, all nuances, perceived or otherwise, aside.

It's not a matter of nuance, which is why you've been asked to define what you mean by "real presence." Given that you pointed to consubstantiation and transubstantiation as examples it's clear you are speaking of the dispute over substance/essence which neither has any comment on. So the sense in which you seem to mean "real presence" is not the sense in which they would say "real presence" so it is entirely a matter of you inserting your position into their words rather than it actually being there.

 

[fhansen]

It's not a matter of nuance, which is why you've been asked to define what you mean by "real presence." Given that you pointed to consubstantiation and transubstantiation as examples it's clear you are speaking of the dispute over substance/essence which neither has any comment on. So the sense in which you seem to mean "real presence" is not the sense in which they would say "real presence" so it is entirely a matter of you inserting your position into their words rather than it actually being there.

Of course it's the same. Just varying modes of describing the Real Presence- that changes nothing of import. Is Jesus really present in the Eucharist or not? Everything you bring up simply serves to avoid the real question. The Church believed that He is before any further philosophizing on it came about. If any explanation denys the RP, then there is a problem.

 

[Fervent]

Of course it's the same. Just varying modes of describing the Real Presence- that changes nothing of import. Is Jesus really present in the Eucharist or not? Everything you bring up simply serves to avoid the real question. The Church believed that He is before any further philosophizing on it came about. If any explanation denys the RP, then there is a problem.

No, it's not the same because the very question of "real presence" isn't sensible outside of Aristotlean metaphysics in a sense that would be disputed. The symbolic views don't deny Jesus' presence, it denies the reality of the metaphysics of substances and accidents and holds a naive view of the bread as bread and wine as wine. There's no underlying substance to transform, and the language of "presence" is polemic rather than illustrative.