RCC doctrine of the Eucharist

[FireDragon76]

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?

 

[chevyontheriver]

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?

Transubstantiation is a word that attempts to explain the Eucharist in Aristotelian terms. If you think in Aristotelian terms it works, with substance and accident and the whole Aristotelian philosophical framework. You could explain it otherwise, as the Catholic Church does not pretend this is the only possible way to explain the Eucharist. In fact I have not even heard the word 'transubstantiation' from any Catholic for a long time.

How does one explain 'This is my body' when what they see is bread? How does one explain 'This is my blood' when a cup is raised? Catholics do believe it is actually the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The Orthodox are in agreement but usually with less explanation. Others have different views. John 6 sees many people walk away from Jesus.

 

[FireDragon76]

I would agree that the bread and wine being identified as the true body and blood of Christ is the orthodox and catholic doctrine. That is one reason I am not Reformed (which in my mind, often borders on the "real absence"). I don't have a problem with Roman Catholic practices concerning the Eucharist. I just wanted a clarification. I don't necessarily see how an aristotilian framework is helpful in appreciating the sacraments. And it is a frequent accusation by Protestant polemicists (and a few Orthodox ones, such as Alexander Schmemann), that the sacramental nature of the Lord's Supper is overturned through the doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I would agree that the bread and wine being identified as the true body and blood of Christ is the orthodox and catholic doctrine. That is one reason I am not Reformed (which in my mind, often borders on the "real absence"). I don't have a problem with Roman Catholic practices concerning the Eucharist. I just wanted a clarification. I don't necessarily see how an aristotilian framework is helpful in appreciating the sacraments. And it is a frequent accusation by Protestant polemicists (and a few Orthodox ones, such as Alexander Schmeeman), that the sacramental nature of the Lord's Supper is overturned through the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation is an attempt at an explanation, and the Catholic Church says it is an adequate explanation. But really only adequate in the framework of Aristotle. If one does not use an Aristotelian framework to understand the world, then using an Aristotelian explanation in a different framework is bound to cause difficulty.

For me, in my puny understanding, I see what looks like brad and wine but I understand it to be Jesus Christ present with us. Bread and wine fade away. For me it would be no issue even if Aristotle was not used for an explanatory framework. Jesus, in John 6, provides less 'framework' but plenty to think on.

I will try to discover what Alexander Schmeeman has to say about this. In the mean time, as something that might shed a bit of light on this, I leave you ad interim, with this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of the Eucharist

 

[Albion]

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?

Yes, your point here is the same as raised in the (Anglican) Articles of Religion when describing Transubstantiation as something that overthrows the nature of a sacrament.

 

[All_In]

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?

From what I understand the Communion becomes the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus.

 

[All_In]

Transubstantiation is an attempt at an explanation, and the Catholic Church says it is an adequate explanation. But really only adequate in the framework of Aristotle. If one does not use an Aristotelian framework to understand the world, then using an Aristotelian explanation in a different framework is bound to cause difficulty.

For me, in my puny understanding, I see what looks like brad and wine but I understand it to be Jesus Christ present with us. Bread and wine fade away. For me it would be no issue even if Aristotle was not used for an explanatory framework. Jesus, in John 6, provides less 'framework' but plenty to think on.

I will try to discover what Alexander Schmeeman has to say about this. In the mean time, as something that might shed a bit of light on this, I leave you ad interim, with this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of the Eucharist

I'm learning about this. At the prayers of consecration what takes place in heaven comes to us and we are in heaven at the heavenly worship as told in Revelation. Read the book Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn.

 

[FireDragon76]

For me, in my puny understanding, I see what looks like brad and wine but I understand it to be Jesus Christ present with us. Bread and wine fade away.

I would hesitate to say the bread and wine fade away. Rather, as Schmemann said, the bread and wine find their fulfillment as the body and blood of Christ. They are transfigured rather than cease to be.

For me it would be no issue even if Aristotle was not used for an explanatory framework. Jesus, in John 6, provides less 'framework' but plenty to think on.

I agree completely with the Catholic interpretation of John 6. It's interesting John is the only Gospel that has no Words of Institution narrative. I believe that's because John 6 is dealing with the Eucharist or Lord's Supper, as remembered by the Christian community in Jesus words. I believe John is more Spirit-inspired theological memory than what we could consider chronological history, so the fact that this part of the narrative occurs prior to the Lord's Supper doesn't concern me (whereas Calvin didn't think John 6 referred to the Lord's Supper).

 

[kepha31]

Contrary to the common misconception, transubstantiation is not dependent upon Aristotelian philosophy, since some notion of the concept goes back to the earliest days of the Church when Aristotle’s philosophy was not known.
http://chnetwork.org/2010/03/16/transubstantiation-and-the-eucharist/ 12th paragraph

 

[Albion]

From what I understand the Communion becomes the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus.

Transubstantiation is the issue.

 

[Albion]

I'm learning about this. At the prayers of consecration what takes place in heaven comes to us and we are in heaven at the heavenly worship as told in Revelation. Read the book Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn.

Isn't that more or less what John Calvin taught?

 

[All_In]

Its a mystery and miracle.

 

[Albion]

Its a mystery and miracle.

It may be mysterious and miraculous, but the church does say how the change occurs and what results because of it.

 

[All_In]

Which church?

 

[Albion]

Which church?

The (Roman) Catholic Church, of course.

 

[All_In]

Then why don't they ask the Catholics?

 

[FireDragon76]

In the Eucharist—a supernatural transformation—a substantial change occurs without accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ

This sort of language sounds strange to me. Yet I can read a great deal of the language and theology of the early church Fathers and identify with it completely. A Lutheran can say we literally hold the same body born of Mary in our hands, and yet we don't necessarily deny that we are also holding bread.

Having said that, I think transubstantiation is closer to the truth than what passed in the Methodist church of my youth, which was more about the "real absence". Lutherans are capable of devotion to the sacrament, for instance, within its ordained use, whereas I think the average Methodist would find that problematic.

 

[Albion]

As regards the Methodists, I feel that the "problem" there is that the typical member doesn't accept what the church's stated view is and, of course, the church itself seems to avoid talking about it.

Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans, I think it's fair to say, make the official belief known even if many in the pews don't "get it" or care.

 

[FireDragon76]

As regards the Methodists, I feel that the "problem" there is that the typical member doesn't accept what the church's stated view is and, of course, the church itself seems to avoid talking about it..

I really think its deeper than that. It was never an issue of catechism and I can't recall a pastor once implying that Christ was communicated in the sacrament in any way. The Methodist statement is sufficiently ambiguous, while it acknowledges that God works through the sacrament, it really is sufficiently inclusive of Zwinglian style rationalistic interpretations: Christ is not present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine, but the believing community is the place of his presence alone.

Whereas in the ELCA, which has a similar ethos to United Methodism, they are very explicit about the Lord's Supper being a sacrament and it is taught in their worship materials, in the Lord's Supper, Jesus is both "host and meal".

 

[Albion]

I really think its deeper than that. It was never an issue of catechism and I can't recall a pastor once implying that the body of Christ was communicated in the sacrament in any way.

I don't doubt that. The liturgy says it, but I am sure that the point isn't digested by most of the congregants.

Whereas in the ELCA, which has a similar ethos to United Methodism, they are very explicit about the Lord's Supper being a sacrament and it is taught in their worship materials, in the Lord's Supper, Jesus is both "host and meal".

Yes, I think that's so.