The Eucharist: Symbolic, Real Presence, Transubstantiation

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.


Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.



Now.....



REAL PRESENCE: Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglicans and Methodist


Real Presence is:

1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing subtracted.

2. Real Presence accepts that the meaning of "is" is is (pardon the grammar; I like to write that, lol). This means that we receive Christ - quite literally. When my Lutheran pastor gives me the host, his exact words are: "Josiah, this IS the Body of Christ."


Real Presence is NOT..

1. Real Presence is not a dogmatic denial of the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the consecration as if we must take a "half real/half symbolic" interpretation of the text. It simply regards such as irrelevant and unimportant (compared to receiving Christ, anyway!). The point of Real Presence is the presence of CHRIST. It's not called, "The Denial of What Paul Wrote" because that's not what it is, it is the AFFIRMATION of what he penned, that CHRIST is present.

2. Real Presence is not a theory about anything or explanation regarding anything. It simply embraces EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. Nothing added, nothing deleted. No pre-science, long rejected theories. Just what Jesus said and Paul penned by inspiration.

3. Real Presence doesn't teach or deny any "change." That word never appears in any Eucharistic text. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. "IS" means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, "This is a Toyota" means we accept this is a Toyota.

Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens, exactly What happens - it doesn't matter. We believe because Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration. That's good enough for the Orthodox and Lutherans, as well as many Anglicans and Methodist. And was for the RCC until 1551 when the RCC alone dogmatized a second view about the Eucharist, one that this thread has powerfully revealed has absolutely no biblical confirmation.


Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodist embrace Real Presence. The Catholic Church does too but it has been entirely buried under it's own unique new secondary dogma, that of Transubstantiation, so much so that many Catholics I've found don't even know what Real Presence is, only the new unique RCC second dogma.



TRANSUBSTANTIATION: Catholic Church, officially since 1551


This is another Eucharistic dogma of The Catholic Church (alone).

The Mystery of Real Presence does raise some questions (unanswered by Scripture or the ECF). All regarded these as just that - questions (and entirely moot ones at that), until western Catholic "Scholasticism" arose in the middle ages. It was focused on combining Christian thought with secular ideas - in the hopes of making Christianity more intellectual and even more to explain away some of its mysteries. It eventually came up with several theories about the Eucharist. One of these was "Transubstantiation."

Although no one claims there's any biblical confirmation of this, and while all admit it lacks any ecumenical or historic embrace, it should be noted that there are a FEW snippets from RCC "Fathers" that speak of "change." But, while Orthodox, Lutherans and others are comfortable with that word, it doesn't imply any transubstantiation.

"Transubstantiation" is a very precise, technical term from alchemy. You'll recall from high school chemistry class that alchemy was the dream that, via incantations and the use of chemicals and herbs, fundamental substance (we'll call such elements) may be transformed from one to entirely others (lead to gold was the typical objective). These western, medieval, Catholic "Scholastics" theorized that the Consecration is an alchemic transubstantiation.

This, however, caused a bit of a problem! Because, in alchemy, the transubstantiated substance normally would have the properties of the NEW substance, and one of the "questions" of Real Presence is why it still has the properties of bread and wine. Here these western, medieval Catholic theorists turned to another pop idea of the day: Accidents. This came hook, line and sinker from Aristotle. He theorized that substance could have properties (he called them "accidents" - it's a very precise term for his theory) that are entirely unrelated to the substance. Sometimes called "ghost physics," the one part of his theory of "accidents" seemed especially useful to these medieval Catholic theorists. He stated that properties of one thing could CONTINUE after the actual causative substance ceased. His example was lightening. Seeing the connection between lightening and thunder, but knowing nothing of wave physics, he taught that the SOUND of lightening continues long after the lightening ceased to exist: this is an "accident." This, then , is what we have in the Eucharist: ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (since, in transubstantiation, bread and wine no longer exist in any real physics sense - it was transubstantiated). No one claims that this has any biblical confirmation or that the RCC "father" referenced Aristotle's Accidents - even as pure theoretical pious opinion.

In Catholicism, there are TWO dogmas vis-a-vis the Eucharist: Real Presence and Transubstantiation. The later was first suggested in the 9th century and made dogma in 1551 (a bit after Luther's death), some say in order to anathematize Luther on the Eucharist since he did not affirm such. Luther regarded it as abiblical, textually problemmatic and unnecessary.


From The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The doctrine of transubstantiation was a controversial question for centuries before it received final adoption. It was Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine monk (786-860), who first theorized transubstantiation by the changing of the elements into the "body and blood of Christ." From the publishing of his treatise in A. D. 831 until the fourth Lateran Council in A. D. 1215, many fierce verbal battles were fought by the bishops against the teaching of Paschasius. - The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. ii, p. 518. Tenth complete American edition, PP. 405-409.




SYMBOLIC PRESENCE: Many Protestant denominations


While Real Presence was nearly universal, there have always been those few with "questions" that made this doctrine problematic for them. The mystery was difficult for them to embrace. This became far more common beginging in the 16th century. Some said that Christ CANNOT be present in the Eucharist because He is in heaven and CANNOT be here, literally anyway. To them, "is" cannot mean "is" - it MUST be a metaphor, it must actually mean "symbolize." Metaphor is certainly not unknown in Scripture, the question becomes: is that the case HERE?

Still others accepted that "is" does mean a literal presence, but they argued this is solely Christ's DIVINE nature, a "spiritual" presence. It's more than in the usual sense of "I am with you always" but not in the sense of "Real Presence."

This view stresses the "Remember me...." of the Institution rather than the "is" aspect of it.


I hope this helps!



Comments? Evaluations? Beliefs?




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


MY view:


Symbolic:

I use to hold this view. While I'm always reluntant to not take God at His word, this HAD to be a metaphor. Two things dissuaded me.

1. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the text above, we read First Corinthians 11:27-30. To me, this makes moot at best and probably problematic for a symbolic view.

2. I came to understand that this veiw, while not entirely unheard of, had very very little historic or ecumenical consensus. While it is a POSSIBLE interpretation (and thus I do NOT regard as it "heretical" and respect those who hold this view), it has no historic or ecumenical support.

Transubstantiation:

I learned of this during my Catholic days. For a time, I embraced it, but as I came to understand it, I rejected it, primarily for 4 reasons:

1. It is entirely untextual. The Eucharistic texts say NOTHING of alchemy or Aristotle's accidents. The texts never even mention "change." The words "is" signify being, not alchemy.

2. It is entirely unnecessary. It accomplishes nothing. It only makes Real Presence dependent upon a long ago forgotten and rejected pre-science dream and a theory of Aristotle, long ago rejected in physics. It's goal of explaining away the Mystery doesn't. It only creates problems.

3. It creates textual difficulties. Paul actually mentions "bread" and "wine" FAR MORE OFTEN after the Consecration than before it. But Transubstantiation requires that we ignore such, and regard such as "Aristotelian accidents." The word "is" in the texts must be deleted and replaced with, "hereby undergoes an alchemic transubstantion" and each time "bread" and "wine" appear in the text, we must insert, "the Aristotelian Accident of...." It requires the same "split" interpretation that symbolic presence does: HALF of the time, the words mean what they are, and HALF of the time they mean something symbolic. MIXED interpretations in a sentence is usually associated with a problematic hermeneutic.

4. This lacks any historic or ecumenical support. It was invented in the 9th century by western Catholic "Scholastics" as just one possible theory to explain away the Mystery.


Real Presence:

I learned of this view in my religion studies as a part of my high school education, largely from Lutheranism. (Ironically, the RCC, which also embraces this, seems to use the title but substitute the teaching of Transubstantiation). It seems very textual to me, and it has solid historic and ecumenical embrace.

I totally admit it raises questions and IS a "mystery." But, like Christians for the past 2000 years, I lay such aside: along with how God can be three yet one, how Jesus can be both God and man, and a whole lot of other mysteries. I really don't understand exactly WHAT Christ being physically present means in terms of PHYSICS (my college degree is in physics), but it seems to ME - in the light of 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 - this is the correct view, and it has come to be powerfully spiritual and significant to me.


Just MY perspective.

What's YOURS?




.

 

[Chesterton]

.

Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.


Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24. and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.



Now.....



REAL PRESENCE: Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglicans and Methodist


Real Presence is:

1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing substracted.

2. Real Presence accepts that the meaning of is is is. This means that we receive Christ - quite literally, physically. When my pastor gives me the host, his exact words are: "Josiah, this IS the Body of Christ."


Real Presence is NOT..

1. Real Presence is not a dogmatic denial of the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the consecration as if we must take a "half real/half symbolic" interpretation of the text. It simply regards such as moot. The point of Real Presense is the presence of CHRIST. It's not called, "The Denial of What Paul Wrote" because that's not what it is, it is the AFFIRMATION of what he penned, that CHRIST is present.

2. Real Presence is not a theory about anything or explanation regarding anything. It simply embraces EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus said and Paul penned.

3. Real Presence doesn't teach or deny any "change." That word never appears in any Eucharistic text. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. "IS" means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, "This is a Toyota" means we accept this is a Toyota.

Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens, exactly What happens - it doesn't matter. We believe because Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration. That's good enough for the Orthodox and Lutherans, as well as many Anglicans and Methodist. And was for the RCC until 1551 when the RCC alone dogmatized a second view about the Eucharist, one that this thread has powerfully revealed has absolutely no biblical confirmation.


Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodist embrace Real Presense. The Catholic Church does too but it has been entirely buried under it's own unique new secondary dogma, that of Transubstantiation, so much so that many Catholics I've found don't even know what Real Presence is, only the new unique RCC second dogma.



TRANSUBSTANTIATION: Catholic Church, officially since 1551


This is another Eucharistic dogma of The Catholic Church (alone).

The Mystery of Real Presense does raise some questions (unanswered by Scripture or the ECF). All regarded these as just that - questions (and entirely moot ones at that), until western Catholic "Scholasticism" arose in the middle ages. It was focused on combining Christian thought with secular ideas - in the hopes of making Christianity more intellectual and even more to explain away some of its mysteries. It eventually came up with several theories about the Eucharist. One of these was "Transubstantiation."

Although no one claims there's any biblical confirmation of this, and while all admit it lacks any ecumenical or historic embrace, it should be noted that there are a FEW snippets from RCC "Fathers" that speak of "change." But, while Orthodox, Lutherans and others are comfortable with that word, it doesn't imply any transubstantiation.

"Transubstantiation" is a very precise, technical term from alchemy. It is the term for alchemy. You'll recall from high school chemistry class that alchemy was the dream that, via incantations and the use of chemicals and herbs, fundamental substance (we'll call such elements) may be transformed from one to entirely others (lead to gold was the typical objective). These western, medieval, Catholic "Scholastics" theorized that the Consecration is an alchemic transubstantiation.

This, however, caused a bit of a problem! Because, in alchemy, the transubstantiated substance normally would have the properties of the NEW substance, and one of the "questions" of Real Presense is why it still has the properties of bread and wine. Here these western, medival Catholic theorists turned to another pop idea of the day: Accidents. This came hook, line and sinker from Aristotle. He theorized that substance could have properties (he called them "accidents" - it's a very precise term for his theory) that are entirely unrelated to the substance. Sometimes called "ghost physics," the one part of his theory of "accidents" seemed especially useful to these medieval Catholic theorists. He stated that properties of one thing could CONTINUE after the actual causative substannce ceased. His example was lightening. Seeing the connection between lightening and thunder, but knowing nothing of wave physics, he taught that the SOUND of lightening continues long after the lightening ceased to exist: this is an "accident." This, then , is what we have in the Eucharist: ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (since, in transubstantiation, bread and wine no longer exist in any real physics sense - it was transubstantiated). No one claims that this has any biblical confirmation or that the RCC "father" referenced Aristotle's Accidents - even as pure theoretical pious opinion.

In Catholicism, there are TWO dogmas vis-a-vis the Eucharist: Real Presence and Transubstantiation. The later was first suggested in the 9th century and made dogma in 1551 (a bit after Luther's death), some say in order to anathematize Luther on the Eucharist since he did not affirm such. Luther regarded it as abiblical, textually problemmatic and unnecessary.


SYMBOLIC PRESENCE: Many Protestant denominations


Look again at the Eucharistic texts. An important aspect is (with apologies to Bill Clinton), what the meaning of "is" is....

While Real Presence was nearly univeral, there have always been those few with "questions" that made this doctrine problemmatic for them. The mystery was difficult for them to embrace. This became far more common beinging in the 16th century. Some said that Christ CANNOT be present in the Eucharist because He is in heaven and CANNOT be here - physically anyway. To them, "is" cannot mean "is" - it MUST be a metaphor, it must actually mean "symbolize." Metaphor is certainly not unknown in Scripture, the question becomes: is that the case HERE?

But a "symobolic" presence does NOT imply merely a metaphor. Some stress that in the Eucharist, Christ IS "present" but not PHYSICALLY. It's more than in the usual sense of "I am with you always" but not in the sense of "Real Presence."

This view stresses the "Remember me...." concept. They tend to see the Eucharist as an ordinance (something we do for God) rather than as a Sacrament (something God does for us).


I hope this helps!



Comments? Evaluations? Beliefs?




.

.


MY view:


Symbolic:

I use to hold this view. While I'm always reluntant to not take God at His word, this HAD to be a metaphor. Two things dissuaded me.

1. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the text above, we read First Corinthians 11:27-30. To me, this makes moot at best and probably problematic for a symbolic view.

2. I came to understand that this veiw, while not entirely unheard of, had very very little historic or ecumenical consensus. While it is a POSSIBLE interpretation (and thus I do NOT regard as it "heretical" and respect those who hold this view), it has no historic or ecumenical support.

Transubstantiation:

I learned of this during my Catholic days. For a time, I embraced it, but as I came to understand it, I rejected it, primarily for 4 reasons:
1. It is entirely untextual. The Eucharistic texts say NOTHING of alchemy or Aristotle's accidents. The texts never even mention "change." The words "is" signify being, not alchemy.

2. It is entirely unnecessary. It accomplishes nothing. It only makes Real Presence dependent upon a long ago forgotten and rejected pre-science dream and a theory of Aristotle, long ago rejected in physics. It's goal of explaining away the Mystery doesn't. It only creates problems.

3. It creates textual difficulties. Paul actually mentions "bread" and "wine" FAR MORE OFTEN after the Consecration than before it. But Transubstantiation requires that we ignore such, and regard such as "Aristotelian accidents." The word "is" in the texts must be deleted and replaced with, "hereby undergoes an alchemic transubstantion" and each time "bread" and "wine" appear in the text, we must insert, "the Aristotelian Accident of...." It requires the same "split" interpretation that symbolic presence does: HALF of the time, the words mean what they are, and HALF of the time they mean something symbolic. MIXED interpretations in a sentence is usually associated with a problematic hermeneutic.

4. This lacks any historic or ecumenical support. It was invented in the 9th century by western Catholic "Scholastics" as just one possible theory to explain away the Mystery.


Real Presence:

I learned of this view in my religion studies as a part of my high school education, largely from Lutheranism. (Ironically, the RCC, which also embraces this, seems to use the title but substitute the teaching of Transubstantiation). It seems very textual to me, and it has solid historic and ecumenical embrace.

I totally admit it raises questions and IS a "mystery." But, like Christians for the past 2000 years, I lay such aside: along with how God can be three yet one, how Jesus can be both God and man, and a whole lot of other mysteries. I really don't understand exactly WHAT Christ being physically present means in terms of PHYSICS (my college degree is in physics), but it seems to ME - in the light of 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 - this is the correct view, and it has come to be powerfully spiritual and significant to me.


Just MY perspective.

What's YOURS?

.

Please stick to the topic.

 

[Ramon96]

Great post!

This is Eastern Orthodox view on the Holy Eucharist (we confirm that there is a change (into the Body and Blood of Christ), but do not confess the manner of the change, and we do not accept the Scholastic belief of the Roman Church concerning the Sacraments:

"Further, bread and wine are employed: for God knoweth man's infirmity: for in general man turns away discontentedly from what is not well-worn by custom: and so with His usual indulgence H e performs His supernatural works through familiar objects: and just as, in the case of baptism, since it is man's custom to wash himself with water and anoint himself with oil, He connected the grace of the Spirit with the oil and the water and made it the water of regeneration, in like manner since it is man's custom to eat and to drink water and wine, He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through what is familiar and natural.

The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same.

Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment.

The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, "This is My body," not, this is a figure of My body: and "My blood," not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live.

Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let us pay homage to it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, in order that the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire. Isaiah saw the coal. But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire: in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but bread united with divinity. But a body which is united with divinity is not one nature, but has one nature belonging to the body and another belonging to the divinity that is united to it, so that the compound is not one nature but two.

The body and blood of Christ are making for the support of our soul and body, without being consumed or suffering corruption, not making for the draught (God forbid!) but for our being and preservation, a protection against all kinds of injury, a purging from all uncleanness: should one receive base gold, they purify it by the critical burning lest in the future we be condemned with this world. They purify from diseases and all kinds of calamities; according to the words of the divine Apostles, For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. This too is what he says, So that he that partaketh of the body and blood of Christ unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself. Being purified by this, we are united to the body of Christ and to His Spirit and become the body of Christ.

But if some persons called the bread and the wine antitypes(9) of the body and blood of the Lord, as did the divinely inspired Basil, they said so not after the consecration but before the consecration, so calling the offering itself. Participation is spoken of; for through it we partake of the divinity of Jesus. Communion, too, is spoken of, and it is an actual communion, because through it we have communion with Christ and share in His flesh and His divinity: yea, we have communion and are united with one another through it. For since we partake of one bread, we all become one body of Christ and one blood, and members one of another, being of one body with Christ.

With all our strength, therefore, let us beware lest we receive communion from or grant it to heretics; Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, saith the Lord, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest we become partakers in their dishonour and condemnation. For if trojan is in truth with Christ and with one another, we are assuredly voluntarily united also with all those who partake with us. For this union is effected voluntarily and not against our inclination. For we are all one body because we partake of the one bread, as the divine Apostle says.

Further, antitypes of future things are spoken of, not as though they were not in reality Christ's body and blood, but that now through them we partake of Christ's divinity, while then we shall partake mentally through the vision alone.
[.....]"
Saint John of Damascene, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith-Book 4

In IC.XC,
Ramon

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Great post!

This is Eastern Orthodox view on the Holy Eucharist (we confirm that there is a change (into the Body and Blood of Christ), but do not confess the manner of the change, and we do not accept the Scholastic belief of the Roman Church concerning the Sacraments:

"Further, bread and wine are employed: for God knoweth man's infirmity: for in general man turns away discontentedly from what is not well-worn by custom: and so with His usual indulgence H e performs His supernatural works through familiar objects: and just as, in the case of baptism, since it is man's custom to wash himself with water and anoint himself with oil, He connected the grace of the Spirit with the oil and the water and made it the water of regeneration, in like manner since it is man's custom to eat and to drink water and wine, He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through what is familiar and natural.

The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same.

Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment.

The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, "This is My body," not, this is a figure of My body: and "My blood," not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live.

Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let us pay homage to it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, in order that the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire. Isaiah saw the coal. But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire: in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but bread united with divinity. But a body which is united with divinity is not one nature, but has one nature belonging to the body and another belonging to the divinity that is united to it, so that the compound is not one nature but two.

The body and blood of Christ are making for the support of our soul and body, without being consumed or suffering corruption, not making for the draught (God forbid!) but for our being and preservation, a protection against all kinds of injury, a purging from all uncleanness: should one receive base gold, they purify it by the critical burning lest in the future we be condemned with this world. They purify from diseases and all kinds of calamities; according to the words of the divine Apostles, For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. This too is what he says, So that he that partaketh of the body and blood of Christ unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself. Being purified by this, we are united to the body of Christ and to His Spirit and become the body of Christ.

But if some persons called the bread and the wine antitypes(9) of the body and blood of the Lord, as did the divinely inspired Basil, they said so not after the consecration but before the consecration, so calling the offering itself. Participation is spoken of; for through it we partake of the divinity of Jesus. Communion, too, is spoken of, and it is an actual communion, because through it we have communion with Christ and share in His flesh and His divinity: yea, we have communion and are united with one another through it. For since we partake of one bread, we all become one body of Christ and one blood, and members one of another, being of one body with Christ.

With all our strength, therefore, let us beware lest we receive communion from or grant it to heretics; Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, saith the Lord, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest we become partakers in their dishonour and condemnation. For if trojan is in truth with Christ and with one another, we are assuredly voluntarily united also with all those who partake with us. For this union is effected voluntarily and not against our inclination. For we are all one body because we partake of the one bread, as the divine Apostle says.

Further, antitypes of future things are spoken of, not as though they were not in reality Christ's body and blood, but that now through them we partake of Christ's divinity, while then we shall partake mentally through the vision alone.
[.....]"
Saint John of Damascene, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith-Book 4

In IC.XC,
Ramon

Thank you, that's very helpful!



.

 

[KeenanParkerII]

Hello,

When I did a little poking around I found transubstantiation defined by the Catholic Church and the council of Trent as:

"that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining –...," (catholic)

rather than an alchemical definition. So now I'm in search of a document that links the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation with alchemical transubstantiation that you allude to, specifically the properties of Accidents.

Based on the simple definition set forth by the council of Trent, on which I think Catholic doctrine is built, doesn't the Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation have more in common with the Orthodox belief of an inexplicable change?

but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. (Orthodox)

(Of course, whether or not you believe the Mystery to be in the change or in the continuous presence is a different story, my post being instead on the nature of the beliefs of the change.)

 

[MrPolo]

Hello,

When I did a little poking around I found transubstantiation defined by the Catholic Church and the council of Trent as:

"that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining –...," (catholic)

rather than an alchemical definition. So now I'm in search of a document that links the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation with alchemical transubstantiation that you allude to, specifically the properties of Accidents.

Based on the simple definition set forth by the council of Trent, on which I think Catholic doctrine is built, doesn't the Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation have more in common with the Orthodox belief of an inexplicable change?

but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. (Orthodox)

(Of course, whether or not you believe the Mystery to be in the change or in the continuous presence is a different story, my post being instead on the nature of the beliefs of the change.)

Yes, it does resemble the Orthodox belief very much. For Catholics, the Eucharist remains a great mystery. Transubstantiation is simply the term meaning the bread/wine has been ontologically changed. It has nothing to do with alchemy which refers to change in physical properties. In Transubstantiation, the physical appearances (called the "accidents" or "species") of bread and wine remain.

 

[KeenanParkerII]

Yes, it does resemble the Orthodox belief very much. For Catholics, the Eucharist remains a great mystery. Transubstantiation is simply the term meaning the bread/wine has been ontologically changed. It has nothing to do with alchemy which refers to change in physical properties. In Transubstantiation, the physical appearances (called the "accidents" or "species") of bread and wine remain.

So it is safe to say that "Transubstantiation" and "Accidents" are simply terminological. Their actual meanings defined by the Catholic Church do not share in those views of Alchemy, and not in Aristotelian physics.



But for the meat of the matter.
A. Real Presence - Concedes to the mystery of how the bread was Christ all along.
B. Transubstantiation - Concedes to the mystery of how the bread changed into Christ.

In my simplistic, beginner view of things, I would think that the bread would indeed have to change. To assert that the bread was always God is to assert that the baker made God..

One may counter that the baker did not really make the bread.. But that God was found in the flour, and before that in the grain, and before that the soil.. and indeed now we sound like a bunch of Spinozans asserting that God the Host is found in everything. And I may as well go eat a tree.

So I am prone to think that somewhere along the line the lowly bread became something more. But that is my two cents, and others would say it's arbitrary because it's a mystery, but I eagerly await others input.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So it is safe to say that "Transubstantiation" and "Accidents" are simply terminological. Their actual meanings defined by the Catholic Church do not share in those views of Alchemy, and not in Aristotelian physics.

Such would be wrong. "Transubstantiation" is and was a very precise, technical term THAT REFERS TO ALCHEMY, it is the central, foundational point of alchemy, it IS alchemy. "Accidents" is the specific, particular, technical, precise term for Aristotle's theory. It IS the term FOR that theory.

IF the RCC wanted to simply stick to the doctrine of Real Presence (which is affirmed also by the Orthodox and Lutheran churches, as well as some Anglicans and Methodist), then it would have done that. Instead, it invented a second doctrine (made dogma in 1551), that of TRANSUBSTANTIATION. It teaches that a TRANSUBSTAINATIATION (aka alchemic change in elementary substances) occures leaving behind ACCIDENTS (aka Aristotle's theory).

Real Presence states what the Eucharistic texts do. "This is My Body...Blood." That's it. That's all. The unique, new, Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation is a separate doctrine that attempts to apply alchemy and Aristotle's theory of accidents to explain HOW such is true - to explain away the mystery using two secular, pagan, long ago forgetten and rejected pre-science theories popular when western Catholic Scholasticism invented this "explanation."

But for the meat of the matter.
A. Real Presence - Concedes to the mystery of how the bread was Christ all along.
B. Transubstantiation - Concedes to the mystery of how the bread changed into Christ.

1. Real Presence says EXACTLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. Nothing added. Nothing substracted. Taking each at his word.

2. Transubstantiation, a new and unique domga of only one denomination - the RCC and that only since 1551 - speaks to a word that isn't in any Eucharistic text: change, and applies two pagan, secular, long ago forgetten and rejected pre-science concepts to try to "explain" how this "change" (which Jesus and Paul never mentioned) "happens." It's one of several attempts of western medieval Catholic "Scholasticism" to explain away the mystery of Real Presence using to pop ideas of the day.






.

 

[boswd]

Such would be wrong. "Transubstantiation" is and was a very precise, technical term THAT REFERS TO ALCHEMY, it is the central, foundational point of alchemy, it IS alchemy. "Accidents" is the specific, particular, technical, precise term for Aristotle's theory. It IS the term FOR that theory.

IF the RCC wanted to simply stick to the doctrine of Real Presence (which is affirmed also by the Orthodox and Lutheran churches, as well as some Anglicans and Methodist), then it would have done that. Instead, it invented a second doctrine (made dogma in 1551), that of TRANSUBSTANTIATION. It teaches that a TRANSUBSTAINATIATION (aka alchemic change in elementary substances) occures leaving behind ACCIDENTS (aka Aristotle's theory).

Real Presence states what the Eucharistic texts do. "This is My Body...Blood." That's it. That's all. The unique, new, Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation is a separate doctrine that attempts to apply alchemy and Aristotle's theory of accidents to explain HOW such is true - to explain away the mystery using two secular, pagan, long ago forgetten and rejected pre-science theories popular when western Catholic Scholasticism invented this "explanation."








1. Real Presence says EXACTLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. Nothing added. Nothing substracted. Taking each at his word.

2. Transubstantiation, a new and unique domga of only one denomination - the RCC and that only since 1551 - speaks to a word that isn't in any Eucharistic text: change, and applies two pagan, secular, long ago forgetten and rejected pre-science concepts to try to "explain" how this "change" (which Jesus and Paul never mentioned) "happens." It's one of several attempts of western medieval Catholic "Scholasticism" to explain away the mystery of Real Presence using to pop ideas of the day.






.

I'll call your bluff, can you show us any documentation of the Transubstantion as defined by the Catholic Church where it contains the exact method and the how it changes from bread into body and from wine into blood.
Can you cite any documentation that says anything along the lines of the molecules of and the wine change from into iron and plasma etc.
You keep saying they use Science to describe the HOW the change happens.
Can you show us this science?
I'm talking molecules changing here not alot of tap dancing.

Thanks

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'll call your bluff, can you show us any documentation of the Transubstantion as defined by the Catholic Church where it contains the exact method and the how it changes from bread into body and from wine into blood.

Transubstantiation IS the "method" as you oddly call it. It is the precise "change" that the RCC now dogmatically insists is meant by the word "change" in the Eucharistic texts (which, of course, doesn't exist).

You keep saying they use Science to describe the HOW the change happens.

I've never said that. "Science" as we typically think of it was unknown to the western Catholic Scholastics of the 9th century. There were a plethora of pop ideas around at the time, however. They ceased on two to invent this theory - one of many they developed to try to explain the mystery of Real Presence. The two they utilized are alchemy's transubstantiation and Aristotle's theory of accidents.

I'm talking molecules changing

They were philosophers. They were not scientists. There were no scientists in the 9th century. No one at the time knew about molecules. They embraced a pop concept of alchemy - which is entirely about what they called "transubstantiation." Elementary substances, they believed, could be transformed from one to another, lead to gold was their typical ultimate objectives (they had no idea both of those are elements).




.

 

[boswd]

CHRIST PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST THROUGH TRANSUBSTANTIATION​

46. To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new "reality" which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.



This is what I found, nothing "explaining AWAY the Mystery" nothing trying to overly define the Eucharist.

I'm still looking for the "How" though.

 

[boswd]

found this

HOLY EUCHARIST A MYSTERY OF FAITH​

15. First of all, We want to recall something that you know very well but that is absolutely necessary if the virus of every kind of rationalism is to be repelled; it is something that many illustrious martyrs have witnessed to with their blood, something that celebrated fathers and Doctors of the Church have constantly professed and taught. We mean the fact that the Eucharist is a very great mystery—in fact, properly speaking and in the words of the Sacred Liturgy, the mystery of faith. "It contains within it," as Leo XIII, Our predecessor of happy memory, very wisely remarked, "all supernatural realities in a remarkable richness and variety of miracles." (4)


wait a minute that says the Eucharist is a Mystery,

Hold on I'm still looking

 

[boswd]

Transubstantiation IS the "method" as you oddly call it. It is the precise "change" that the RCC now dogmatically insists is meant by the word "change" in the Eucharistic texts (which, of course, doesn't exist).




I've never said that. "Science" as we typically think of it was unknown to the western Catholic Scholastics of the 9th century. There were a plethora of pop ideas around at the time, however. They ceased on two to invent this theory - one of many they developed to try to explain the mystery of Real Presence. The two they utilized are alchemy's transubstantiation and Aristotle's theory of accidents.



They were philosophers. They were not scientists. There were no scientists in the 9th century. No one at the time knew about molecules. They embraced a pop concept of alchemy - which is entirely about what they called "transubstantiation." Elementary substances, they believed, could be transformed from one to another, lead to gold was their typical ultimate objectives (they had no idea both of those are elements).




.

You keep claiming that Transubstantiation is an exact, precise explaination of "HOW" the bread and wine change to the body and blood.

I would love to see this exact,precise definition of how this change occurs. I'm only coming up with "its a Mystery of the Holy Spirit".

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CHRIST PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST THROUGH TRANSUBSTANTIATION​

46. To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new "reality" which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

Okay. Transubstantiation is the technical, precise word for what alchemy is all about - the whole changing of the elementary aspects of matter (what they called "substance") into entirely different things.

Specie (the current word used instead of accidents) refers to Aristotle's theory. Aristotle taught that what WE would call "properties" of a substance can be entirely unrelated to the actual substance. The form of all this that these medieval Catholic philoposhers embraced was he taught that properties can exist AFTER the reality caused them no longer exists (he used thunder as his example - understanding the relationship to lightening but not knowing about the waves of light or sound) - the sound of it exists after it no longer exists. This is a form of his "accidents."

All this is right out of the "play book" of alchemy and Aristotle.


.

 

[boswd]

Ok, Please show me the exact, precise "HOW" this is done that you claim the RCC does to Expalain "AWAY" the mystery.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Ok, Please show me the exact, precise "HOW" this is done that you claim the RCC does to Explain "AWAY" the mystery.

I'm really at a loss here, my friend.....


Real Presence affirms the reality: This is Christ Body and Blood. It affirms the words Jesus said and Paul penned - literally. Nothing added, nothing subtracted.

Transubstantiation is a theory developed beginning in the 9th century solely in the West that tried to explain things using the pop ideas of the day. They had other theories, too - all quite controversal at the time. It attempts to get at why the mass of the elements doesn't increase at the Consecration, to get at the process involved. It doesn't define the science involved (there was no science in the 9th century; they weren't scientists they were theorist and philosophers). Alchemy's transubstantiation and Aristotle's "accidents" was their new theory as to what happens. The Catholic Encyclopedia (and my Catholic teachers) all noted that this is a second doctrine - NOT a part of Real Presence.



.

 

[boswd]

I am too because you have claimed that Transubs is an exact, precise explanation of how and it explains away the mystery.

I have seriously been through about 30 different sources for Transub from New Advent to Vatican.va to online dictionary's ect. there is no how the change happens, there is no exact precise explaination away of the Mystery.
All it says in a nut shell is the change occurs through the mystery of the Holy Spirit despite that its species still look and taste like their original properities.

I mean seriously THAT'S IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me ask you this as I know you believe in the Real Presence. When you take communion, what does the bread and wine taste like?

 

[MrPolo]

But for the meat of the matter.
A. Real Presence - Concedes to the mystery of how the bread was Christ all along.
B. Transubstantiation - Concedes to the mystery of how the bread changed into Christ.

In my simplistic, beginner view of things, I would think that the bread would indeed have to change. To assert that the bread was always God is to assert that the baker made God..

Indeed, good reasoning. Just to clarify, Transubstantiation does not explain "how." It is really a miracle. It just says the bread is changed by the power of the Spirit at consecration.

CCC#1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

CCC#1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).​

 

[boswd]

My whole point is people have taken Transubstantiation to another level beyond it's actuality and what is defined by the Catholic Church. Some circles have given Transsub. this explanation of the how's the why's the in's the out's and everything else
They have given it meanings that just don't exist and make WAY TOO much out of it.

It' get's soo crazy.