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 think I understand where Catholics are coming from, though it does sound like a different emphasis as compared to how other Christian denominations think of sacramentalism. Years ago I also encountered Pope Benedict XVI writing about the Eucharist and he wrote in similar terms to Schmemann, about the Real Presence as fulfillment. But it would take some work to dig up the reference.
If the bread and wine have ceased to exist before the distribution, it surely seems that it would.
It IS what their Church teaches, however.
If the bread and wine have ceased to exist before the distribution, it surely seems that it would.I don't think the doctrine of transubstantiation undermines the sign-value of the bread and the wine.
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?
Just thinking aloud but why would it be an issue when at the same time accepting that baptism results in a fundamental change. Or the change of water to wine being a good thing or change in the nature of our physical bodies in the resurrection? Or the change to Jesus body after his resurrection. Or the apostles recognizing Jesus at the blessing/breaking of bread.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?
It wasn't the meaning or impact of the sacrament as a sacrament that was at issue.Just thinking aloud but why would it be an issue when at the same time accepting that baptism results in a fundamental change.
Those are changes, all right, but they are not part of the alleged changeover in the elements used in the sacrament of the altar. So again, not a parallel situation.Or the change of water to wine being a good thing or change in the nature of our physical bodies in the resurrection?
Same as the previous paragraph.Or the change to Jesus body after his resurrection. Or the apostles recognizing Jesus at the blessing/breaking of bread.
That's ok you may of misunderstood what I was addressing. I think the OP had a query about the idea of a change in an existing thing would somehow negate the purpose or fundamental meaning of a sacrament.It wasn't the meaning or impact of the sacrament as a sacrament that was at issue.
It was about the changeover of the elements. In Baptism, it's not believed that the water becomes blood or anything else, so this doesn't seem a fair comparison.
Those are changes, all right, but they are not part of the alleged changeover in the elements used in the sacrament of the altar. So again, not a parallel situation.
Same as the previous paragraph.
Miracles can happen. Miracles have happened. God can change matter into something else. BUT none of that means that every change that the mind or man can contemplate must therefore have happened.
Unfortunately, people like to believe in miracles, to be able to witness one personally, so they think that believing something to be a miracle that actually is not one is somehow a proof of their religious faith.
Okwell, you're right, Panevino. The OP was more focused. He said to help him understand the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist (which he then names--Transubstantiation). Then he asked how, if the physical elements that are part of any sacrament can be eliminated, it's possible for the sacrament to still meet the definition of a sacrament.
It's a point taken up by the (Anglican) Articles of Religion, by the way.
However, my reply to your post doesn't seem totally off topic since none of those parallels you mentioned in your post deal with sacraments.
Maybe if I had not included the last two paragraphs in my post (which were something of an afterthought), it might have been better.
Am I correct in understanding that the term "accident" is not part of the Council of Trent's definition of transubstantiation?
You are correct. It basically says that the conversion of the substance of the bread and wine is fittingly called transubstantiation by the Catholic Church.
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?