RCC doctrine of the Eucharist

[marineimaging]

You take unleavened bread and break it and pass it around and eat it. Then you take red wine and you drink it. To those outside the faith you say, I do this to remember Jesus. The bread is like his body which was beaten and hung on the cross for me. And the wine is like his blood that was shed to wash my sins away. I am to recall that He was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God in Heaven. And I do it because he said to do it until He returns. I think Jesus made it so simple that even the most ignorant shepherd could understand it. Some folks make it so complicated (or so it seems) so they can own it and keep it away from us ignorant simpletons without a big vocabulary.

 

[sturgeonslawyer]

Let's try it this way...

The elements of the sacrificial meal really do become the body and blood of Christ: that is, their substance (Aristotelian _substantia_) is replaced with that of the b.&b.

But they continue to look and feel and taste like bread and wine. These are the "accidents," that is they are things that are not inherently part of the substance of Christ. Thus, while the sacramental grace is truly present in the b.&b. of Christ, it is still symbolized by those accidents: thus, it is a symbol that really delivers the grace it symbolizes.

 

[Albion]

You take unleavened bread and break it and pass it around and eat it. Then you take red wine and you drink it. To those outside the faith you say, I do this to remember Jesus. The bread is like his body which was beaten and hung on the cross for me. And the wine is like his blood that was shed to wash my sins away. I am to recall that He was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God in Heaven. And I do it because he said to do it until He returns. I think Jesus made it so simple that even the most ignorant shepherd could understand it. Some folks make it so complicated (or so it seems) so they can own it and keep it away from us ignorant simpletons without a big vocabulary.

Even the 'most ignorant simpleton' might notice that your explanation here leaves out some important parts of what Jesus actually told his disciples at the time that he instituted the Holy Meal and improvises some that he did NOT say.

 

[Mountainmike]

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?

Surely the outward sign is the ceremony, so the sign is not destroyed: it is an event , which results in imparting to the host.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Surely the outward sign is the ceremony, so the sign is not destroyed: it is an event , which results in imparting to the host.

Interesting. Is it the meal itself or the bread and wine that are the symbol? Normally we are taught that the 'elements' are bread and wine. Thus the concern if the bread and wine stop being bread and wine. I have been digging to find out Schmemann's position on this - not the easiest search - and I'm trying to understand what he thinks, and also what the original poster thinks. It has consumed a lot of time and a few brain cells so far.

I'm not so sure I would jump to the conclusion that the outward sign is the ceremony. I think it has to correlate with the body and the blood. IIRC Jesus said 'this is my body' after he had taken bread and blessed it. Likewise with a cup of wine. So I think maybe we are stuck with bread and wine as the elements. It does appeal to me that the whole event is involved. And that gets at a minor controversy about exactly when in the consecration Jesus becomes present. There are varying opinions on that.

Anyhow, thanks for your insights.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Surely the outward sign is the ceremony, so the sign is not destroyed: it is an event , which results in imparting to the host.

Interesting. Is it the meal itself or the bread and wine that are the symbol? Normally we are taught that the 'elements' are bread and wine. Thus the concern if the bread and wine stop being bread and wine. I have been digging to find out Schmemann's position on this - not the easiest search - and I'm trying to understand what he thinks, and also what the original poster thinks. It has consumed a lot of time and a few brain cells so far.

I'm not so sure I would jump to the conclusion that the outward sign is the ceremony. I think it has to correlate with the body and the blood. IIRC Jesus said 'this is my body' after he had taken bread and blessed it. Likewise with a cup of wine. So I think maybe we are stuck with bread and wine as the elements. It does appeal to me that the whole event is involved. And that gets at a minor controversy about exactly when in the consecration Jesus becomes present. There are varying opinions on that.

Anyhow, thanks for your insights.

 

[NeoScholasticism]

FireDragon76,

See if you can't get your hands on "The Mysteries of Christianity" by Matthias Scheeben. It's somewhat pricey, so you'd do best to find it at a library. There's a great chapter in there on sacramental theology which serves as a fine synthesis of scholastic sacramental theology.

We would do well to distinguish between the dogmatic theology and systematic theology on the issue. The doctrines in dogmatic theology are the plot points, so to speak, which different systematic theologians must hit. But those theologians have the leisure of doing so as they like. (There is a strong distinction in Catholic theology between dogma and theological opinion. There is a legitimate radius of orthodoxy, because there is a legitimate development of doctrine. C.f. Bl. Henry Cardinal Newman.) Traditionally, the Church has gone with the scholastic Thomist presentation. The Council of Trent, an ecumenical council, mentioned transubstantiation in one of its canons -- no Catholic can deny it. We might debate over whether this "canonized" Thomist philosophy, but I think it might mean something like this: if a better philosophy than Aristotelian-Thomism comes along, that is fine, but it cannot contradict the use of transubstantiation, even if it goes beyond it and makes it more sophisticated.

What are the dogmas here? You might take a look at the canons from the Council of Trent. Meanwhile, the following are the relevant formulas from Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which is something of a gold standard:
- The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist.
- Christ becomes present in the Scrament of the Altar by the transofmration of the whole substance of the bread into His Body and the whole substance of the wine into His Blood.
- The Accidents of bread and wine continue after the change of the substance.
- The Sacramental Accidents retain their physical reality after the change of the substance.
- The Sacramental Accidents continue without a subject in which to inhere.
- The Body and the Blood of Christ together which His Soul and His Divinity and therefore the Whole Christ are truly present in the Eucharist.
- The Whole Christ is present under each of the two Species.
- When either consecrated species is divided the Whole Christ is present in each part of the species.
- After the Consecration has been completed the Body and Blood are permanently present in the Eucharist.
- The Worship of Adoration (latria) must be given to Christ present in the Eucharist.
- The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a mystery of Faith.
- The Eucharist is a true Sacrament instituted by Christ.
- The matter for the consummation of the Eucharist is bread and wine.
- The form of the Eucharist consists in Christ's Words of institution, uttered at the Consecration.
- The chief fruit of the Eucharist is an intrinsic union of the recipient with Christ.
- The Eucharist, as food for the soul, preserves and increases the supernatural life of the soul.
- The Eucharist is a pledge of heavenly bliss and of the future resurrection of the body.
- For children before the age of reason the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation.
- For adults the reception of the Eucharist is necessary for salvation with the necessity of precept.
- Communion under two forms is not necessary for any individual member of the Faithful, either by reason of Divine precept or as a means of salvation.
- The power of consecration resides in a validly consecrated priest only.
- The Sacrament of the Eucharist can be validly received by every baptised person in the wayfaring state, including young children.
- For the worthy reception of the Eucharist the state of grace as well as the proper and pious disposition are necessary.

Unfortunately I have to dash for the part of the afternoon. I hope to follow up on the scholastic presentation, as found in Scheeben. Meanwhile, if you like, you can poke around on the interwebz machine looking for these terms, as they come from that presentation: sacramentum, sacramentum simul et res, and sacramentum tantum. And if you like, I can dip into Bonaventure's presentation of sacramental theology as well. It's a bit different, but it hits all the dogmas properly.

 

[NeoScholasticism]

(Double post.)

 

[chevyontheriver]

Surely the outward sign is the ceremony, so the sign is not destroyed: it is an event , which results in imparting to the host.

Interesting. Is it the meal itself or the bread and wine that are the symbol? Normally we are taught that the 'elements' are bread and wine. Thus the concern if the bread and wine stop being bread and wine. I have been digging to find out Schmemann's position on this - not the easiest search - and I'm trying to understand what he thinks, and also what the original poster thinks. It has consumed a lot of time and a few brain cells so far.

I'm not so sure I would jump to the conclusion that the outward sign is the ceremony. I think it has to correlate with the body and the blood. IIRC Jesus said 'this is my body' after he had taken bread and blessed it. Likewise with a cup of wine. So I think maybe we are stuck with bread and wine as the elements. It does appeal to me that the whole event is involved. And that gets at a minor controversy about exactly when in the consecration Jesus becomes present. There are varying opinions on that.

Anyhow, thanks for your insights.

 

[NeoScholasticism]

(Double post.)

 

[chevyontheriver]

The forum had a hiccup and I double posted as well.

 

[Greyy]

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

I respect the depth of the question you are asking. To answer it properly, it may become necessary for us to define specifically what you getting at. So please don't hestiate to redefine or specify. I would say that asking what the doctrine as it is currently taught could be taken as somewhat offensive, as if the Catholic Church has a kind of temporary or de jure teaching subject to arbitrary or convenient alteration. As revelation is taught as something of God which is essentially infinitely knowable, theological development is seen as a process of elucidation.

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?

It may not be appropriate to speak of the sacraments themselves as imparting grace. Rather, the means by which Christ through the Holy Spirit makes grace available to those disposed to receiving it.

Nevertheless, the sign itself isn't destroyed. A common way to discuss the Eucharist is understanding bread and wine as having a substance, which is not perceivable, and its "accidents" which are what are perceivable. The substance of the bread and wine changes to what is of Christ, while the accidents, the perceivable, remain. Thus, the sign is actually preserved.

The reality of the bread and wine changes, the substance of bread and wine, to the substance of Christ. The sign, the symbol, the thing perceived, remains, which are the accidental properties of the bread and wine.

 

[Greyy]

.

 

[Greyy]

..

 

[FireDragon76]

I thought I would provide the quote from the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann, from his book For the Life of the World:

" [A sacrament] is the epiphany -- in and through Christ -- of the "new creation", not the creation of something "new." And if it reveals the continuity between creation and Christ, it is because there exists, at first, a continuity between Christ and creation whose logos, life, and light He is. It is precisely this aspect of both the institution and sacrament that virtually disappear in post-patristic theology. The causality linking the institution to "signum" to "res" is viewed as extrinsic and formal, not as intrinsic and revealing. Rather than revealing through fulfillment, it guarantees the reality of the sacrament's effect. Even if, as in the case of the Eucharist, the sign is completely identified with reality, it is experienced in terms of the sign's annihilation rather than in those of fulfillment. In this sense the doctrine of transubstantiation, in its Tridentine form, is truly the collapse, or rather the suicide, of sacramental theology."
--Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, 1973, pp 143-144.

 

[zippy2006]

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?

Interesting question!

• Taking the word "sacrament" in its broadest sense, as the sign of something sacred and hidden (the Greek word is "mystery")... (Catholic Encyclopedia)
  
• The Greek word mysterion was translated into Latin by two terms: mysterium and sacramentum. In later usage the term sacramentum emphasizes the visible sign of the hidden reality of salvation which was indicated by the term mysterium. (CCC 774)
  
• Sign: something indicating the presence or existence of something else (Merriam-Webster)

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?

1. No sacramental worldview requires the nature of a thing to become something else in order to participate in grace
2. Transubstantiation requires the nature of a thing to become something else in order to participate in grace
3. Therefore Transubstantiation is not a coherent part of a sacramental worldview

In particular I am having a hard time understanding premise (1).

I thought I would provide the quote from the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann, from his book For the Life of the World:

How do you or Schmemann defend the idea that the "continuity between Christ and creation [has] virtually disappeared in post-patristic theology [of the Eucharist]"? What exactly is the principle which Transubstantiation violates?

 

[marineimaging]

Let's try it this way...

The elements of the sacrificial meal really do become the body and blood of Christ: that is, their substance (Aristotelian _substantia_) is replaced with that of the b.&b.

But they continue to look and feel and taste like bread and wine. These are the "accidents," that is they are things that are not inherently part of the substance of Christ. Thus, while the sacramental grace is truly present in the b.&b. of Christ, it is still symbolized by those accidents: thus, it is a symbol that really delivers the grace it symbolizes.

Again, my point (and confirmed this morning) is that we can over complicate that which we were instructed to do. The same as for salvation and trying to define works and why they don't add up. The Word was written for even the most simple minded to understand. The Word is sufficient just as it is written. No need to complicate it. And as Baptists we don't believe the bread and wine are converted into actual body and blood. We see it for what was described just as it could be explained to a shepherd on the hill. "Take this and eat..."

 

[EmethAlethia]

There are two ways of going to scripture.

1. The first is to prove your beliefs true and prove all opposing beliefs false. To do this
   
   You:
   

1. Gather all of the data you think you can “use” to hold fast to your beliefs, and
   
   
2. All the data that you think you can “use” to prove all opposing beliefs false, then,
   
   
3. You interpret everything in the light of your selected data and in the light of your beliefs.
   
   
4. If your goal is to hold fast to your beliefs “as” truth, this is the method that works for everyone with every belief on the planet. No matter what beliefs you have, this will allow you to believe them for the rest of your life. Shoot, do this long enough and become very thorough and you can be an expert in whatever belief group you pick or start.
   
   1. A part of this is meanings of words. If we want truth, we hold to the exact, consistent meaning for every word / root word that fits EVERYWHERE that same word/root word is used. If we want to hold fast to our beliefs “as” truth, when we need to, we pick some other meaning in the few places where we need that different meaning to hold fast to what we want to believe. As ludicrous as this may sound, people will actually change meanings of words as drastically as, “Pencil” means elephant, but in these locations only. Elephant is implied. It is a hidden meaning in these verses. Yes, it means pencil everywhere else, but we know it means elephant here and here. They do this even though there already is a word for elephant and that most definitely was NOT the word used. I know, crazy, right?
      

1. A “Remembrance” is not a re-sacrifice. It’s a remembrance.
   
   1. Places where the same root word is used: Mark 11:21, 14:72, Luke 22:19, 1Co 4:17, 11:24, 25, 2Co 7:15, 2Ti 1:6, Heb. 10:3, 32 A “Sacrifice” or ongoing sacrifice or re-sacrifice all involves completely different words that no one used in reference to the Lord’s Supper (Not Sacrifice or re-sacrifice) and there are over 30 places where that completely different root word is used. The meanings have absolutely NOTHING in common. And Jesus and the writers of scripture chose it to be a “remembrance” or they would have used different words. You may not like the words Jesus chose, but it isn’t your right to change them or their meaning to fit another word He, nor any other bible writer used because you like that meaning better. It’s that old adding to scripture, teaching as doctrines of God the precepts of men, nullifying what God says and means to hold fast to your traditions thing.
      
2. Jesus still called it bread and wine after saying the words. Mat. 26:26-29, Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18 Unless Jesus is stating that He has grape Juice as blood (Fruit of the vine), Nothing actually happened to the bread and wine even when He said those words.
   
   
3. Jesus said His sacrifice was a “Once for ALL” sacrifice, not a million times a day in a million churches sacrifice. 1Pe 3:18 And of course:
   

Heb 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

1. Also, “It is finished”, means, “It is finished”, not a, “Well I started it, and now you have to keep on re-sacrificing Me for all eternity, sacrifice”.
   

That said, there are a number of passages in the bible like this one:

1Co 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? 19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?

The context being eating meat sacrificed to idols, of course.

There is much figurative language in scripture. Don’t be upset if you don’t get it when you see it. The disciples often missed it as well:

Joh 4:31 Meanwhile the disciples were urging Him, saying, "Rabbi, eat." 32 But He said to them, "I have food to eat that you do not know about." 33 So the disciples were saying to one another, "No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?" 34 Jesus *said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.

It’s kind of like me saying of a colleague, “He eats and drinks chemistry.”. And it is like what Jesus is saying here. My entire existence revolves around My Father’s will. Both figuring it out and doing it. Is Jesus yanking His Father out of Heaven and eating Him? With all the evidence, especially Jesus’ own choice of words, I vote for what it says and means. Communion, the Lord’s Supper … is a service of remembering what He did for us. He died in our place. My food is to figure out the meaning of all that His Word says and do it EXACTLY as He meant it. My food is to do the will of Him who sent me. Eat well my friends.

 

[wilts43]

I think you pressing an English understanding of "Remembrance"
This was The Passover Meal
And Christ was the New Lamb for the New & Everlasting Covenant.
"Remembrance" must be understood in a Jewish, "Passover" way.................

"At the Last Supper, Jesus invited his followers to continue to meet and celebrate the Eucharist “in memory of me”. But his use of the word ‘memory’ and our use of that word are very different. For us ‘memory’ is a weaker word. It simply means calling something to mind, remembering an event like the birth of your child, your wedding day, or the game when your favorite sports team finally won the championship. That’s a simple remembering, a passing recollection. It can stir deep feelings but it does nothing more. Whereas in the Hebrew concept out of which Jesus was speaking, memory, making ritual remembrance of something, implied much more than simply recalling something.

To remember something was not simply to nostalgically recall it; rather it meant to recall and ritually re-enact it so as to make it present again in a real way.

For example, that’s how the Passover Supper is understood within Judaism. The Passover meal recalls the Exodus from Egypt and the miraculous passing through the Red Sea into freedom.

The idea is that one generation, led by Moses, did this historically, but that by re-enacting that event ritually, in the Passover Meal, the event is made present again, in a real way, for those at table to experience.

The Eucharist is the same, except that the saving event we re-enact so as to remake it present through ritual is the death and resurrection of Jesus, the new Exodus. Our Christian belief here is exactly the same as that of our Jewish brothers and sisters, namely, that we are not just remembering an event, we are actually making it present to participate in.

The Eucharist, parallel to a Jewish Passover meal, remakes present the central saving event in Christian history, namely, Jesus’ Passover from death to life in the Paschal mystery. And just as the consecrated bread and wine give us the real presence of Christ, the Eucharist also gives us the real presence of the central saving event in our history, Jesus’ passage from death to life."

As for all those repeated "re-sacrifices".....consider Malachi 1:11 What does he foretell if not the Mass...
"For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations," says the LORD of hosts.

 

[Albion]

You've made good points, Wilts, but as far as "remembrance" is concerned, it isn't the end of the matter to show that more is meant by the word than is usually thought. That's because--regardless of the translation--there is more that Jesus said to his disciples at the Last Supper that is included in the Bible account. To focus on "remembrance" (as the members of some churches do) while totally discounting or ignoring the rest of his instructions is simply a non-starter as a position statement.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't appreciate people coming in here to debate the merits of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence (a doctrine that Lutherans happen to share, with a slightly different explanation). That is NOT up for debate here. I am well aware of Baptist views of their "ordinance" of grace juice and Wonder Bread.

What we are discussing is the metaphysics of the Real Presence, and how it relates to a sacramental worldview.

 

[Robert Klahn]

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?

I find changing the nature of a thing in order to participate in grace no issue at all. First because Grace comes from God. After that the Eucharist is bringing us together with Christ in the from of the last supper. In the bread we have the unleavened bread of the last supper, with the word of Jesus, this is my body. It is from Jesus that the grace comes, not just bread.

Eating bread that has had a magic spell said over it is fine for a fantasy story of magicians, but in this case, the bread is a symbol, the reality is the word of Jesus, "This is my body", and how it brings us back to Him.

 

[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?

Aaron,

I have been busy at work, but I will answer your last two questions as soon as I get some free time. The basic definition of a sacrament is: A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give Grace.

Also see: Sacraments | Catholic Answers

zeland