Edited: Question on Catholic beliefs

[GingerBeer]

Isn't that where Jesus literally turned the drink into his actual blood and the bread into his actual flesh? Yeah that's crazy and not what the Bible says at all if I'm talking about the same thing.

Didn't Jesus say:

“Take it and eat it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and, after saying the thanksgiving, gave it to them, with the words: “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my covenant blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.​

is that crazy?

 

[GingerBeer]

According to the second council of trent, Catholics do, based on the words used.

I am interested to see a quote from the council of Trent that says what you said.

 

[tampasteve]

As the Catholic Catechism isn't biblical why would I read it?

Because you are asking for clarification on a Catholic teaching, and the Catechism is the go to official source on Catholic teachings.

I only use the Bible for reference. I do not use or accept other sources.

If you take a look at the Catechism, most of it is cross referenced with the applicable scriptures, but generally those are just a start on the biblical references. Volumes of books have been written on the subject.

 

[Valetic]

Didn't Jesus say:

“Take it and eat it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and, after saying the thanksgiving, gave it to them, with the words: “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my covenant blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.​

is that crazy?

He didn't literally give it to them though. It was just bread and wine

 

[TuxAme]

He didn't literally give it to them though. It was just bread and wine

The gospel writers described what it appeared to be, but Jesus told them what it really is.

 

[MariaJLM]

The fact is, though, that a re-sacrifice of Christ was taught by the Roman church for centuries. Only in recent times, and after the idea no longer was convincing to the modern men and women in the pews was it necessary to massage it somewhat.

That's what also happened with Limbo, Purgatory, Remarriage, women servers at Mass, weekly confession, and a number of other teachings that once were very clear-cut and important.

If people are trying to change church teachings to cater to modern sensibilities then they're missing the point. We're not supposed to be of this world. We merely reside in it.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

I'm legitimately curious, so hopefully we can all keep a calm demeanor on this.

Given the below scriptures how does the Catholic teaching that Christ is sacrificed over and over again, through the eucharist according to the council of trent, become reconciled with scripture that clearly states Christ's sacrifice was for once and all time, being sufficient just once?

Please use scripture for responses. Thank you!

Hebrews 9:25-26
Hebrews 10:10-14

In John 6, Jesus feeds the 5,000+ people with a few loaves and fishes. He then contrasts his actions with those of Moses and the manna, a gift which God had repeated daily. Later in that same chapter, he says to the crowd, who are looking for more free bread, that they shouldn't look for physical bread that can spoil but for bread that can give them eternal life (verses 26, 27). He drives home his point in verses 32, 33 that the Father gives them him as true food and then claims that he is the bread of life (verse 35), one of his seven "I am" statements claiming his deity in being the God of the unburnable burning bush in Exodus 3 and 4, who declares that he is the great "I AM THAT I AM." After he claims that people have to eat his body and drink his blood, many people leave him because they take him literally. Clearly, because of the discussion early in the chapter, he speaks figuratively about his spiritual feeding his believers' faith. We Reformed folks believe that as we eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord's Supper, the Father through Jesus by the Holy Spirit works in our hearts stronger faith.

 

[Valetic]

The gospel writers described what it appeared to be, but Jesus told them what it really is.

Sure but my whole point is transubstantiation. Did he or did he not miraculously turn the bread into his living flesh and the wine into his life blood? Or did he simply give a message with meaning and depth?

 

[GingerBeer]

"And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory....For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered himself on the Cross, the manner alone of offering being different" (Session 22, chapter 2).

I did a web search to find the source for the quote you gave. Here is what I found:

CHAPTER II.

That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.

And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreeably to a tradition of the apostles.​

It is convoluted English. Quite detailed and difficult to decipher. It appears to say that there is one sacrifice that is bloody which would be the sacrifice on the cross and that there is another sacrifice that is not bloody which would be the sacrifice of the mass that occurs every time there is a mass. Then comes the complicated part which looks like it means that the bloody sacrifice is the same sacrifice that happens in the mass in every way except in the mass it is not bloody.

A little later in the 22 session there are some "canons" given which say:

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

CANONS

CANON I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.​

CANON II.--If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke 22:19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.​

CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.​

CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.​

CANON V.--If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.​

CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.​

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.​

CANON VIII.--If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.​

CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.​

You may have a point, it does looks like the teaching may be that Christ offers himself at every mass. Perhaps a Catholic can explain why that is either correct or incorrect.

​

 

[TuxAme]

In John 6, Jesus feeds the 5,000+ people with a few loaves and fishes. He then contrasts his actions with those of Moses and the manna, a gift which God had repeated daily. Later in that same chapter, he says to the crowd, who are looking for more free bread, that they shouldn't look for physical bread that can spoil but for bread that can give them eternal life (verses 26, 27). He drives home his point in verses 32, 33 that the Father gives them him as true food and then claims that he is the bread of life (verse 35), one of his seven "I am" statements claiming his deity in being the God of the unburnable burning bush in Exodus 3 and 4, who declares that he is the great "I AM THAT I AM." After he claims that people have to eat his body and drink his blood, many people leave him because they take him literally. Clearly, because of the discussion early in the chapter, he speaks figuratively about his spiritual feeding his believers' faith. We Reformed folks believe that as we eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord's Supper, the Father through Jesus by the Holy Spirit works in our hearts stronger faith.

They take Jesus literally here, why? He wasn't understood literally when He claimed to be a door or a vine, yet here we have the people asking how He can give them His flesh to eat. Rather than correcting them, His language continues to reinforce their understanding.

Something else is going on here- the apostles knew it, they spread this teaching on to their own disciples, and it was universal Christian teaching until well over a thousand years after Jesus Ascended.

 

[TuxAme]

Sure but my whole point is transubstantiation. Did he or did he not miraculously turn the bread into his living flesh and the wine into his life blood? Or did he simply give a message with meaning and depth?

He gave the apostles His Flesh and Blood just as He promised, though veiled under the accidents of bread and wine. The gospel writers wrote what Jesus held, and told their audience what Jesus had to say about their substance.

 

[GingerBeer]

He didn't literally give it to them though. It was just bread and wine

Well, if what you say is true then what the gospel says is not true. The gospels say:

Matthew 26:26-29 [26] While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and, after saying the blessing, broke it and, as he gave it to his disciples, said: “Take it and eat it; this is my body.” [27] Then he took a cup, and, after saying the thanksgiving, gave it to them, with the words: “Drink from it, all of you; [28] for this is my covenant blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. [29] I tell you that I will never, after this, drink of this juice of the grape, until that day when I will drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.”

Mark 14:22-25 [22] While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and, after saying the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said: “Take it; this is my body.” [23] Then he took a cup, and, after saying the thanksgiving, gave it to them, and they all drank from it. [24] “This is my covenant-blood,”he said, “which is poured out on behalf of many. [25] I tell you that I will never again drink of the juice of the grape, until that day when I will drink it new in the kingdom of God.”​

 

[TuxAme]

Let's go back a bit: was Jesus' death a sacrifice or not?

 

[chevyontheriver]

After he claims that people have to eat his body and drink his blood, many people leave him because they take him literally. Clearly, because of the discussion early in the chapter, he speaks figuratively about his spiritual feeding his believers' faith.

If that were true, that Jesus was speaking only figuratively, then why did he let all those people go who understood him to be speaking literally. He could have said, "Wait, wait, you misunderstood me. Of course I didn't mean it in the sense you all understood me to be saying." But that didn't happen. He let them go. No explanation. No clarification. Just let them go. Not very nice.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Let's go back a bit: was Jesus' death a sacrifice or not?

I think I know where you are going with this ....

 

[GingerBeer]

Ok, but no one has answered the below.

I did a web search and "catholicculture.com" gives this definition:

Catholic Dictionary
Term
TRANSUBSTANTIATION

Definition
The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term itself was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favoured expression was meta-ousiosis, "change of being"; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, "change of substance," which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the "wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the wine into the blood" of Christ, added "which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation" (Denzinger 1652). after transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantio, change of substance.)​

 

[GingerBeer]

Fair enough, but I suppose what I'm trying to understand is the rationale behind that...from either the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic viewpoint. If the cross was the only sacrifice, and as the Lord said "It is finished", then why "take part in the sacrifice" again? This concept just doesn't make sense to me, which is why I asked. Thanks.

In church we sometimes sing a hymn which says "are you washed in the blood of the lamb". That hymn implies that people singing today are somehow washed in Christ's blood shed on the cross. How is that possible unless there's application of the blood shed once for all to the singer singing now? Could that be the same principle that the Eastern-Orthodox person expressed in these words:

The sacrifice was for all time; God is outside the boundaries of time as we understand it. I'd assume the Catholic church takes a similar stance, but in the Eastern Orthodox church we believe it's the same sacrifice being offered. Christ is not being re-sacrificed as you say. We're merely taking part in the sacrifice that was offered when He died on the cross.​

 

[Yarddog]

I'm legitimately curious, so hopefully we can all keep a calm demeanor on this.

Given the below scriptures how does the Catholic teaching that Christ is sacrificed over and over again, through the eucharist according to the council of trent, become reconciled with scripture that clearly states Christ's sacrifice was for once and all time, being sufficient just once?

Please use scripture for responses. Thank you!

Hebrews 9:25-26
Hebrews 10:10-14

There is no Catholic teaching that Christ is sacrificed over and over again. There was one sacrifice.

 

[Philip_B]

Laudato Si @ 236.
It is in the Eucharist that all that has been created finds its greatest exaltation. Grace, which tends to manifest itself tangibly, found unsurpassable expression when God himself became man and gave himself as food for his creatures. The Lord, in the culmination of the mystery of the Incarnation, chose to reach our intimate depths through a fragment of matter. He comes not from above, but from within, he comes that we might find him in this world of ours. In the Eucharist, fullness is already achieved; it is the living centre of the universe, the overflowing core of love and of inexhaustible life. Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God. Indeed the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love: “Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world”. The Eucharist joins heaven and earth; it embraces and penetrates all creation. The world which came forth from God’s hands returns to him in blessed and undivided adoration: in the bread of the Eucharist, “creation is projected towards divinization, towards the holy wedding feast, towards unification with the Creator himself”. Thus, the Eucharist is also a source of light and motivation for our concerns for the environment, directing us to be stewards of all creation.​

Whilst I am not a Capital C catholic, I do make sense of what Pope Francis said in the Encyclical Laudato Si. It seems to me a great deal of the battle on the subject of Transubstantiation from the reformation period may well have to do with understanding what Jesus meant when he said:

Luke 22:14-20
When the hour came, Jesus took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. He said to them, ‘I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.’ Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, ‘Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.’ Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.​

The Greek for the words underlined reads:

τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

The last word in English characters anamnesis​

There are those who will want to render this a simply being a way to remember Jesus. I suspect in the context in which it was written it however means more than that. The Jews when they celebrated the Passover would share the story of the Exodus, and it concluded with the words tonight we have come out of Egypt. It was a sense of calling their salvation history into their present context, and they spoke of this as anamnesis. Our salvation history, the one perfect and sufficient sacrifice spoken of in Hebrews is called into our present context, and Jesus is with us in our present context.

Bread is Blessed and Broken
Wine is Blessed and Poured
Jesus Anamnesis
Christ the Lord​

The problem that we now face is that of telling each other what each other is saying, as I suspect that some of the words spoken in the 16th century are not of note the words that are spoken today, and when I read Catholic theologians I don't find them nearly as clear or crude in enunciating catholic faith as those who want to challenge them. That is why I began with a quote from Pope Francis, because it is about the sacrament of our Lord's death and resurrection, not as too often seems suggested in these forums a magic trick.

 

[gideon123]

Why dont we look at the words of Christ himself. Happily, someone already quoted the Bible verse ...

Didn't Jesus say:
“Take it and eat it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and, after saying the thanksgiving, gave it to them, with the words: “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my covenant blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Exactly.

Is there anyone here who really believes that the Last Supper was the culmination of Christ's ministry ... i.e. that the Crucifixion and Resurrection were not necessary? Surely no-one advocates this.

Then dont you think that Jesus was speaking metaphorically - and spiritually - about his forthcoming crucifixion?

So if anyone - Protestant or Catholic - believes that Jesus is telling his disciples to be cannibals ... then I think that you have missed the whole point that Jesus was making.

Transfiguration or not ... wine or grape juice ... real piece of bread or a sliver of 'cardboard' ... if you walk out of Communion and you immediately go back to the ways of the world ... then the Communion was wasted. The message that God was giving ... never sank in.

I am convinced that many people know just enough Christianity - to be innoculated against it.