Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Mystically it does. Physically it is a bloodless worship. Says so in the text of the service.does or does it not BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ?
"You perhaps say: 'My bread is usual.' But the bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. So let us confirm this, how it is possible that what is bread is the body of Christ. By what words, then, is the consecration and by whose expressions? By those of the Lord Jesus. For all the rest that are said in the preceding are said by the priest: praise to God, prayer is offered, there is a petition for the people, for kings, for the rest. When it comes to performing a venerable sacrament, then the priest uses not his own expressions, but he uses the expressions of Christ. Thus the expression of Christ performs this sacrament."
-"The Sacraments" Book 4, Ch.4:14.
"Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated, and that greater efficacy resides in the blessing than in nature, for by the blessing nature is changed… . Surely the word of Christ, which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can change things already in existence into what they were not. For it is no less extraordinary to give things new natures than to change their natures… . Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ; yet, it is not on that account corporeal food, but spiritual. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: `For our fathers ate spiritual food and drink spiritual drink.' [1 Cor. 10:2-4] For the body of God is a spiritual body."
-"On the Mysteries" 9, 50-52, 58; 391 A.D.:
"I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same."
Source: St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy," 2,4, c. 397 A.D.
"It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. 'This is My Body,' he says, and these words transform what lies before him."
Source: St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies on the Treachery of Judas" 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:
"'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the Blood of Christ?' Very trustworthily and awesomely does he say it. For what he is saying is this: 'What is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and we partake of it.' He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise Him in song, wondering and astonished at His indescribable Gift, blessing Him because of His having poured out this very Gift so that we might not remain in error, and not only for His having poured out It out, but also for His sharing It with all of us."
-"Homilies on the First Letter to the Corinthians" [24,1] ca. 392 A.D.
"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."
-"Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.
So are you saying you don't believe the bread and wine BECOMES the Body and Blood of Christ?We can't reason our way through a mystery.
Any scolding is because of going too far... off the reservation so to speak.
Forgive me...
Nope. I do believe it.So are you saying you don't believe the bread and wine BECOMES the Body and Blood of Christ?
Okay so now I take it you guys are trying to confuse the situation? One says it changes, another says it does not.
Either the bread and wine becomes the Flesh and Blood of our Lord or it doesn't.
Becoming something else is whether you like it or not is a change.
Okay so now I take it you guys are trying to confuse the situation? One says it changes, another says it does not.
Either the bread and wine becomes the Flesh and Blood of our Lord or it doesn't. Becoming something else is whether you like it or not is a change.
Also no one here has proclaimed a physical change. Transubstantiation does not claim this. The only way you get to that is not understanding what substance means in a classical sense. It isn't what something is made of. I.e My substance isn't my flesh and blood. My substance is my humanity. Substance is what something is.
Essence is that which makes something what it is. Substance is that out of which something is made.
Thanks. I still would distinguish between matter, substance and essence myself. I didn't mean to imply substance to be the same as the matter which makes up something ("physical substance")That is not the sense in which these words are being used in the Roman discourse around transubstantiation. In their neo-Aristotelian language, substance is what something is (closer to what you mean here by essence); not the physical matter of which it is made.
The language has moved on from what was common in the Trinitarian debates. To translate it back into the older language, it might be possible to talk about transessentialism.
Aristotle did distinguish between essence and substance. In regards to essence: "The essence of a thing is what it is said to be in respect of itself".
On the other hand, he gave three candidates for being called substance, and that all three are substance in some sense or to some degree: matter, form and composite of form and matter.
Did Neo-Aristotelian philosophy change this?
All that said, I digress....
I'm not expert on Aristotle's work, but what you've put here is not, as I understand it, how neo-Aristotelian scholastics would have put it. But we're reaching the edges of my knowledge.
Okay so now I take it you guys are trying to confuse the situation? One says it changes, another says it does not.
Either the bread and wine becomes the Flesh and Blood of our Lord or it doesn't. Becoming something else is whether you like it or not is a change.
Also no one here has proclaimed a physical change. Transubstantiation does not claim this. The only way you get to that is not understanding what substance means in a classical sense. It isn't what something is made of. I.e My substance isn't my flesh and blood. My substance is my humanity. Substance is what something is.
I disagree the nothing changes part, even when paired with the "something changes". Even if it is still bread / wine and also the Body and Blood of Christ - it is fully sanctified. To say nothing changes implies much less of a mystery and more of purely symbolic change. The bread and wine mystically changes...and rest assured, it does change. Even with Baptism - the water changes. It becomes Holy. We can't just toss the bread and wine after the Eucharist, as it is sanctified and Holy.Nothing changes, but something changes.
Confused about a mystery is not a bad thing.
Leave it alone. Let it remain a mystery.
Forgive me...
I would think the change to be within rather than without but I guess that's why I'm not liturgical.I disagree the nothing changes part, even when paired with the "something changes". Even if it is still bread / wine and also the Body and Blood of Christ - it is fully sanctified. To say nothing changes implies much less of a mystery and more of purely symbolic change. The bread and wine mystically changes...and rest assured, it does change. Even with Baptism - the water changes. It becomes Holy. We can't just toss the bread and wine after the Eucharist, as it is sanctified and Holy.
Personally, I believe exactly what the liturgy says, which does say it is changed by the Holy Spirit. Certainly it is a mystery, and I think there are differences in the RCC s Orthodox understanding...but we do believe 100% that there is a change.
Could you explain what you mean by within rather than without? I'm not sure I'm following.I would think the change to be within rather than without but I guess that's why I'm not liturgical.
What I mean can be given as a question so as not to violate forum rule ...Could you explain what you mean by within rather than without? I'm not sure I'm following.
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?