Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Actually, it does.
So, please cite the relevant paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which state unambiguously that the bread becomes literal, physical flesh and the wine becomes literal, physical blood. I have looked in vain for any such statement.
Although this has been a consistent traditional view, current thinking has adopted a very nuanced Aristotelian argument which is actually not too distant from the Lutheran understanding.
You do realise that the Catechism is not definitive. It's a summary document.
Here is a section on the Eucharist from the online Catholic catechism:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Scroll down to "SECTION TWO THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH" and the Eucharist is the 3rd sacrament down on the list. From reading this excerpt from the Catechism it is somewhat clear that Catholics believe the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ.
Here is the Catechism's selection on the Eucharist from another website:
Catechism
Yes, but no one could tell that you know the difference between the Lutheran and the Catholic POV from the way you've described them.
I certainly do not disagree that the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. My contention is that they do not teach that the bread becomes physical flesh and the wine becomes physical blood. The teaching is metaphysical in nature such that the bread, while retaining all physical aspects of bread, becomes the body of Christ and the wine, while retaining all physical aspects of wine, becomes the blood of Christ.
What you have described is the Lutheran view of the sacrament and it is called "Sacramental Union". I am unsure as to whether or not Catholics hold to the same view. But, if "the bread becomes the body of Christ", isn't this speaking of the physical body?
Traditionally, there was exactly that difference between the Lutheran and Catholic views. The view presented at present is really very close to the Lutheran view, if not the same. The Wikipedia article on transubstantiation defines it thus:
In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the doctrine that, in the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and the wine used in the sacrament is changed into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus, while all that is accessible to the senses (the appearances - species in Latin) remains as before.
Here is the link to the entire article - Transubstantiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think you will find it to be quite helpful.
Both the Catholic view of "Transubstantiation" and the Lutheran view of "Sacramental Union" stress the real presence of Christ.
In the sacramental union the consecrated bread of the Eucharist is united with the body of Christ and the consecrated wine of the Eucharist is united with the blood of Christ by virtue of Christ's original institution with the result that anyone eating and drinking these "elements"the consecrated bread and winereally eats and drinks the physical body and blood of Christ as well.
Sacramental union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Martin Luther distinguished this doctrine from that of transubstantiation in this way:
"we do not make Christ's body out of the bread ... Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread . We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, "This is my body." For Christ commands us to say not, "Let this become my body," or, "Make my body there," but, "This is my body."
So this is what I don't like about nondenominational Churches. They do not believe in the real presence:
Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Such a document does not exist. Which, except it would put all those would-be church lawyers out of work, is probably a good thing.However, it is frequently cited by Catholic posters here as being the definitive document of the Catholic faith. However, I do agree that it is a summary document. Do you know which, if any document, provides a complete discussion of the Catholic faith?
If that is all you dislike about non-denominational churches you are doing better than I am. I could list a lot of things I dislike about them.
I think your disagreement is not merely with the vast majority of non-denominational churches on this doctrine, but with every church that maintains Zwinglian theology. This includes virtually all Baptist churches, virtually Anabaptist churches, virtually all Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, to mention but three primary branches of Protestantism.
I think you would like the various Orthodox churches which have their own understanding of the real presence.
Yes, I don't care for the Baptist or Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches as well. I have found most nondenominational churches to be lacking in substance and doctrine.
Such a document does not exist. Which, except it would put all those would-be church lawyers out of work, is probably a good thing.
It's fair to say that it's pretty authoritative in what it does say, but I don't think it's too safe to conclude to much from what it doesn't say.
Certainly the emphasis among theologians has moved away from saying things like "the body is no longer bread" but whether one can yet say much more than that....
I certainly agree with you that the vast majority of non-denominational church lack in substance and doctrine. Despite the fact that their services focus on lengthy sermons, what substance and doctrine they may possess is not communicated well, if at all, in these sermons.
This is also sadly true in most Traditional churches where the homily varies from ten to twenty minutes and rarely communicates much of substance. In my infrequent attendance at Catholic mass all but one homily was a harangue to give more money. The exception was an interesting homily which began with a stirring defense of justification by faith which oddly segued into a refutation of justification by faith.
My Pastor preaches the gospel every Sunday and we partake of the Eucharist.
I have attended a lot of Churches, nondenominational and denominational. I have had the best experience with the Lutheran Church. My Pastor preaches the gospel every Sunday and we partake of the Eucharist.
If that is all your pastor is doing, then you are not too far from the non-denominational camp
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?