Skip to comments.TRANSUBSTANTIATION FOR BEGINNERS
Posted on 02/20/2008 4:47:37 PM PST by NYer
The earliest text concerning the Real Presence is found in Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, written probably about A.D. 57, or 27 years after Christ's death. Modern scholars believe Jesus died in the year 30 and that Saul was converted early in 37. Some are convinced his conversion was as early as 34. It seems certain that 1 Corinthians was written after the Passover of 57. This means the newly converted Saul, now Paul, was plunged into the infant Church as early as four and not later than seven years after the death of Christ. He was an eyewitness of the earliest Eucharistic celebrations or liturgical practices. Consider this in light of what Vatican I taught about Revelation: "After the Ascension of the Lord the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done. They did this with a clear understanding, which they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the events of Christ's risen life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth" (Decree on Revelation, 19).
Paul's Eucharistic teaching in 1 Corinthians leaves us in no doubt. "For this is what I received from the Lord and in turn passed on to you: That on the same night as he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and thanked God for it, and broke it, and he said, 'This is my body which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.' In the same way he took the cup after supper and said, 'This cup is a new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.' Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death. And so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup, because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation" (1 Cor. 11:23-29).
In the previous chapter the apostle wrote, "The blessing-cup that we bless is a communion with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is communion with the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:16). His words are clear. The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so.
Paul and Christians of the first generation understood the doctrine in this thoroughly realistic way. They knew how our Lord demanded faith, as ww read in John 6. Belief in the Eucharist presupposes faith. The body that is present in the Eucharist is that of Christ now reigning in heaven, the same body which Christ received from Adam, the same body which was made to die on the cross, but different in the sense that it has been transformed. In the words of Paul, "It is the same with the resurrection of the dead; the thing that is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable; the thing that is sown is contemptible, but what is raised is glorious; the thing that is sown is weak, but what is raised is powerful; when it is sown it embodies the soul, when it is raised it embodies the spirit" (1 Cor. 15:42-44). This spiritualized body was a physical reality, as Thomas discovered. "Put your finger here; look, here are my hands. Give me your hand and put it into my side" (John 20:27). It is this glorious body which is now, under the appearance of bread, communicated to us.
We know that Paul writes that he is handing on a tradition which he received from the Lord. He tells the Galations, "The good news I preach is not a human message that I was given by men, it is something I learned only through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11-12). Likewise to the Philippians: "Keep doing all the things that you have learned from me and have been taught by me and have heard or seen that I do" (Phil. 4:9). To the Colossians he writes, "You must live your whole life according to the Christ you have received--Jesus the Lord" (Col. 2:6).
If Paul is handing on a tradition, we ask where it comes from. Clearly it stems from Christ. Paul stresses this over and over. "Through the good news that we brought he called you to this so that you should share the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:14-15). In the same way he said to Timothy, "Keep as your pattern the sound teaching you have heard from me" (2 Tim. 1:13). The apostle is not referring to just any kind of tradition. His is a tradition that must be believed because Christ himself proclaimed it with his own authority. Christ is the fountainhead of all God's wonderful work. He is the Master, and we must submit to his teaching. "You call me Master and Lord and rightly so: So I am" (John 13:14).
One of the commonest errors of religious people in our day is to think that Christ was mainly a preacher, a holy man who went about organizing public meetings and urging people to repentance. The truth is that the most important thing Christ did was not to preach or to work miracles, but to perpetuate his work by gathering disciples around him. He sent his twelve apostles out to preach. "He summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits with power to cast them out and to cure all kinds of diseases and sickness . . . These twelve Jesus sent out instructing them as follows . . . " (Matt. 10:1-4). The apostles he trained specially for this work. The teaching he gave them became sacred Tradition.
We discover more about the beginnings and development of Christian Tradition from what is now known about the roles of Master and pupil in the Hebrew world. Our Lord was Master, and his followers were his pupils. They were being trained to hand on the living word which was to save the world. The disciples not only listened but followed. "Lord to whom shall we go? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe; we know that you are the holy one of God" (John 6:68). They did not just come and listen and go away, resolving to amend their lives. They became the personal disciples of Christ, being trained to carry more than his words to the world, as we shall see.
One of the characteristics of Hebrew schools was that the pupil or disciple would do anything possible in order to retain fully and exactly his master's teaching. The ideal of every pupil was to be able to reproduce this teaching word for word. That ideal often was attained. This must have been the attitude of the first Christians. They were lovers of Christ, believers in his Godhead. They passionately wanted to retain all that God wished them to remember of the saving word. They had the privilege of receiving personal instruction from the greatest of all teachers, God himself. They had been told that what they were being taught was a treasure they had to pass on to succeeding generations. Theirs was no ordinary schooling. They were filled, absorbed with love. Above all, the Spirit of God was with them, teaching, guiding, and inspiring them.
Three of the Gospels--Matthew, Mark, and Luke--tell us what happened at the Last Supper. Each has its own character, mode of writing, and variants. We do not expect in this type of writing photographic, meticulous, verbal identity. It is the essential truth that matters.
We shall never understand the New Testament unless we remember that these written accounts are simply versions of the verbal tradition. Paul and the evangelists knew what the Christians were doing. The words of consecration were being said at the Eucharistic meals. It was easy enough to write them down. There could have been no distortion, at the most only a simplification. Suppose we had been present with the apostles in those days between Christ's Resurrection and his Ascension. We should have heard Christ teaching them. Indeed this was a most important time of their training. Can we imagine that he would omit to tell them in detail how they were to carry on doing what he told them to do at his Last Supper? Christ knew and they knew that this was to be the very heart of the worship of the Church he founded.
So there is not the slightest doubt that the formulas given us by the evangelists and Paul were those that were being used by the Christians as they celebrated the Eucharist. The Gospels faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while still living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day he was taken up to heaven. Could anything at all be more important than what he did and said about his body and blood? Our Lord's last meal was a Paschal feast, or at least a meal in the atmosphere of a Paschal feast, as he said. We know from Jewish writers how this can easily be fitted in to the full Jewish rite. The ancient commemorative meal of the Hebrews in which they recalled how God had freed his people from Egypt, was now to give place to a commemoration and reenactment of a new and final reality issuing from the mind and will of the risen Christ.
In the eleventh century Berengarius fell into heresy by failing to realize this point. His motto was, "I wish to understand all things by reason." The Eucharist is one of those things which cannot be understood by reason. Human arguments can never explain Christ's Real Presence.
John Chrysostom is known as "the Doctor of the Eucharist." In 398 he became Patriarch of Constantinople. He wrote, "We must reverence God everywhere. We must not contradict him, when what he says seems contrary to our reason and intelligence. His words must be preferred to our reason and intelligence. This ought to be our behavior to the Eucharistic mysteries too. We must not confine our attention to what the senses can experience, but hold fast to his words. His word cannot deceive." Writing of the words of institution he said, "You may not doubt the truth of this; you must rather accept the Savior's words in faith; since he is truth, he does not tell lies."
Centuries later Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the scholastic theologians, taught the same. He said that the existence in the Eucharist of Christ's real body and blood "cannot be grasped by the experience of the senses, but only by the faith which has divine authority and its support." He put it into his famous verse: "Sight, touch, and taste in thee are each deceived; the ear alone most safely is believed; I believe all the Son of God has spoken, than through his own word there is no truer token."
When Christ himself promised his Real Presence in the Eucharist, many of his disciples could not accept it. "This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?" (John 6:68). But Peter had the right mentality. "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe; we know that you are the holy one of God" (John 6:69).
Here is a grave admonition of Pope Paul: "In the investigation of this mystery we follow the Magisterium of the Church like a star. The redeemer has entrusted the word of God, in writing and in tradition, to the Church's Magisterium to keep and to explain. We must have this conviction: 'what has since ancient times been preached and received with true Catholic faith throughout the Church is still true, even if it is not susceptible of a rational investigation or verbal explanation' (Augustine)."
But the Pope goes on to say something that is vitally important. He says that it is not enough merely to believe the truth. We must also accept the way the Church has devised to express that truth exactly. Here is what he says: "When the integrity of faith has been preserved, a suitable manner of expression has to be preserved as well. Otherwise our usual careless language may . . . give rise to false opinions in belief in very deep matters."
Pope Paul does not hesitate to declare that the language the Church has used to describe and explain its teaching has been adopted "with the protection of the Holy Spirit." It has been confirmed with the authority of the councils. More than once it has become the token and standard of the orthodox faith. You have only to read the history of theology in the fourth and fifth centuries to understand how important the use of words was in indicating the true nature of Christ in those times. Then orthodoxy turned upon slight variations in a Greek word. The Holy Father says that this traditional language must be observed religiously. "Nobody may presume to alter it at will or on the pretext of new knowledge. It would be intolerable if the dogmatic formulae which ecumenical councils have employed in dealing with the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity were to be accused of being badly attuned to the men of our day and other formulae were rashly introduced to replace them. It is equally intolerable that anyone on his own initiative should want to modify the formulae with which the Council of Trent has proposed the Eucharistic mystery for belief."
This is a most important point. We must believe that the Council of Trent had the assistance of the Holy Spirit, as any general council has. The Pope then goes on to say that the Eucharistic formulae of the Council of Trent express ideas which are not tied to any specified cultural system. Presumably he is refuting the notion that the distinction we are going to discuss between substance and accidents is peculiar to scholastic philosophy and would be rejected by other thinkers. The Pope says, "They are not restricted to any fixed development of the sciences, nor to one or other of the theological schools. They present the perception which the human mind acquires from its universal essential experience of reality and expresses their use of appropriate and certain terms borrowed from colloquial or literary language. They are, therefore, within the reach of everyone at all times and in all places."
It would be hard to overemphasize this point. In particular we might say that right thought always distinguishes between what a thing is and what it has. You do not need to be a scholastic philosopher to make a simple distinction of that sort. The Pope goes on to say that most things are capable of being explained more clearly, but explanation must not take away their original meaning. Vatican I defined that "that meaning must always be retained which Holy Mother Church has once declared. There must never be any retreat from that meaning on the pretext and title of higher understanding."
There is particular significance in the fact that the dogmas of Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist remained unmolested down to the ninth century. Even then the molestation was comparatively slight. There were three great Eucharistic controversies which helped to clarify the ideas of theologians.
The first was begun by Paschasius Radbertus in the ninth century. The trouble he caused hardly extended beyond the limits of his audience and concerned itself only with the philosophical question whether the Eucharistic body of Christ is identical with the natural body he had in Palestine and now has glorified in heaven.
The next controversy arose over the teaching of Berengarius, to whom we have already referred. He denied transubstantiation but repaired the public scandal he had given and died reconciled to the Church.
The third big controversy was at the Reformation. Luther was the only one among the Reformers who still clung to the old Catholic tradition. Though he subjected it to much misrepresentation, he defended it most tenaciously. He was diametrically opposed by Zwingli, who reduced the Eucharist to an empty symbol. Calvin tried to reconcile Luther and Zwingli by teaching that at the moment of reception the efficacy of Christ's body and blood is communicated from heaven to the souls of the predestined and spiritually nourishes them.
When Photius started the Greek Schism in 869, he still believed in the Real Presence. The Greeks always believed in it. They repeated it at the reunion councils in 1274 at Lyons and 1439 at Florence. Therefore it is evident that the Catholic doctrine must be older than the Eastern Schism of Photius.
In the fifth century the Nestorians and Monophysithes broke away from Rome. In their literature and liturgical books they preserved their faith in the Eucharist and the Real Presence, but they had difficulty because of their denial that in Christ there are two natures and one Person. Thus the Catholic dogma is at least as old as the Council of Ephesus in 431. To establish that the truth goes back beyond that time one need only examine the oldest liturgies of the Mass and the evidence of the Roman catacombs. In that way we find ourselves back in the days of the apostles themselves.
The three controversies just mentioned helped considerably to formulate the dogma of transubstantiation. The term itself, transubstantiation, seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours about 1079. Other theologians, such as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (d. 1188), and Peter of Blois (d. 1200), also used it. Lateran IV in 1215 and the Council of Lyons in 1274 adopted the same expression, the latter being in the Profession Faith proposed to the Greek Emperor, Michael Palaeologus.
Trent was, of course, the council which was summoned specially to refute the errors of the Reformation. After affirming the Real Presence of Christ, the reason for it, and the preeminence of the Eucharist over other sacraments, the council defined the following on October 11, 1551: "Because Christ our Redeemer said it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church, and this holy council now declares that, by the consecration of the bread and wine a change takes place in which the whole substance of bread is changed into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the Holy Catholic Church fittingly and properly names transubstantiation."
The following canon also was promulgated by the Council: "If anyone says that the substance of bread and wine remain in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and extraordinary change of the whole substance of the bread into Christ's body and the whole substance of the wine into his blood while only the species of bread and wine remain, a change which the Catholic Church has most fittingly called transubstantiation, let him be anathema."
Let us try to analyze this idea. We speak of the conversion of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood. What do we mean by conversion? We mean the transition of one thing into another in some aspect of being. It is more than mere change. In mere change one of the two extremes may be expressed negatively, as for example the change of day and night. Night is simply the absence of the light of day. The starting point is positive, while the target, so to speak, is negative. It can be the other way about when we talk of the change of night into day.
Conversion is more than this. It requires two positive extremes. They must be related to each other as thing to thing. For true conversion one thing must run into another thing. It is not just a question of water, for example, changing into steam. Moreover, these two things must be so intimately connected with each other that the last extreme, let us call it the target of the conversion, begins to be only as the first, the starting point, ceases to be. An example of this is the conversion of water into wine at Cana. This is far more radical than the change of water into steam.
A third element is required. There must be something which unites the starting point to the target, one extreme to the other, the thing which is changed to that into which it is changed. At Cana, what was formerly water is now wine. Conversion must not be a kind of sleight of hand, a conjuring trick, an illusion. The target, the element into which the change takes place, must newly exist in some way just as a starting point. The thing which is changed must in some manner really cease to exist. Thus at Cana wine did not exist before in those containers, but it came to exist. Water did exist, but it ceased to exist. But the water was not annihilated. If the water had been annihilated, there would not have been a change but a new creation. We have conversion when a thing which really existed in substance acquires an altogether new and previously non-existing mode of being.
Transubstantiation is unique. It is not a simple conversion. It is a substantial conversion. One thing is substantially or essentially converted into another thing. There is no question here of a merely accidental conversion, like water into steam. Nor is it something like the metamorphosis of insects or the transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor. There is no other change exactly like transubstantiation. In transubstantiation only the substance is converted into another substance, while the accidents remain the same. At Cana substance was changed into substance, but the accidents of water were changed also into the accidents of wine.
The doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily contained in the doctrine of transubstantiation, but the doctrine of transubstantiation is not necessarily contained in the Real Presence. Christ could become really present without transubstantiation taking place, but we know that this is not what happened because of Christ's own words at the Last Supper. He did not say, "This bread is my body," but simply, "This is my body." Those words indicated a complete change of the entire substance of bread into the entire substance of Christ. The word "this" indicated the whole of what Christ held in his hand. His words were so phrased as to indicate that the subject of the sentence, "this," and the predicate, "my body," are identical. As soon as the sentence was complete, the substance of the bread was no longer present. Christ's body was present under the outward appearances of bread. The words of institution at the Last Supper were at the same time the words of transubstantiation. If Christ had wished the bread to be a kind of sacramental receptacle of his body, he would surely have used other words, for example, "This bread is my body" or "This contains my body."
The revealed doctrine expressed by the term transubstantiation is in no way conditioned by the scholastic system of philosophy. Any philosophy that distinguishes adequately between the appearances of a thing and the thing itself may be harmonized with the doctrine of transubstantiation. Right thinking demands that one makes a distinction between what a thing is and what it has. That is part of ordinary common speaking. we say, for example, that this is iron, but it maybe cold, hot, black, red, white, solid, liquid, or vapor. The qualities, actions, and reactions do not exist in themselves; they are in something. We call that something the substance. It makes a thing what it is. When we talk about transubstantiation we are using the word substance in that sense. It is unfair for people who do not want to accept this doctrine to invent their own definition of substance and then to tell us we are wrong.
All that substance sustains, the things which inhere in it, we call by the technical name of accidents. We cannot touch, see, taste, feel, measure, analyze, smell, or otherwise directly experience substance. Only by knowing the accidents do we know it. So we sometimes call the accidents the appearances.
At Mass the priest does exactly what Christ told him to do at the Last Supper. He does not say, "This is Christ's body," but "This is my body." These words produce the whole substance of Christ's body. In the same way the words of consecration produce the whole substance of Christ's blood. They are Christ's body and blood, as they are now living in heaven. There, in heaven, his body and blood are united with his soul and Godhead. The accidents or appearances of his human body are in heaven too. They are present, therefore, in the Holy Eucharist. For want of a better term we speak of them as following the substance. By the words of consecration the substance is immediately and directly produced. The personal accidents of Christ, his appearances, are there by what the theologians call "natural concomitance."
Every raindrop that falls contains the whole substance of water. That same entire substance is present in the tiniest particle of steam which comes from the kettle on the hob. The entire substance of Christ is present in each consecrated host, in a chalice of consecrated wine, in each crumb that falls off the host, and in each drop that is detached from the wine.
But we must not imagine that Christ is compressed into the dimensions of the tiny, circular wafer or a grape. No, the whole Christ is present in the way proper to substance. He can be neither touched nor seen. His shape and his dimensions are there, but they are there in the same way as substance is there, beyond the reach of our senses.
When the priest at Mass, obeying Christ, speaks the words of consecration, a change takes place. The substance of bread and the substance of wine are changed by God's power into the substance of Christ's body and the substance of his blood. The change is entire. Nothing of the substance of bread remains, nothing of the substance of wine. Neither is annihilated; both are simply changed.
The appearances of bread and wine remain. We know that by our senses. We can see, touch, and taste them. We digest them when we receive Communion. After the consecration they exist by God's power. Nothing in the natural order supports them because their own proper substance is gone. It has been changed into Christ's substance. They do not inhere in the substance of Christ, which is now really present. It is not strictly true to say that Christ in the Eucharist looks like bread and wine. It is the appearances of bread and wine that look like bread and wine. The same God who originally gave the substance of bread power to support its appearance keeps those appearances in being by supporting them himself.
Christ is present as substance. That is the key to a right understanding of this mystery. He does not have to leave heaven to come to us in Communion. There is no question of his hopping from host to host or rushing from church to church to be present in each for a little while. When we receive Communion we are not given a particle of Christ's body of the same dimension as the small wafer the priest puts on our tongue. Those who imagine otherwise have failed to grasp the meaning of substantial presence.
Many of the Fathers of the Church warned the faithful not to be satisfied with the senses which announce the properties of bread and wine.
Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, "Now that you have had this teaching and are imbued with surest belief that what seems to be bread is not bread, though it has the taste, but Christ's body, and what seems to be wine is not wine, even if it appears so to the taste, but Christ's blood."
John Chrystostom (d. 407) said, "It is not the man who is responsible for the offerings becoming Christ's body and blood, it is Christ himself, who is crucified for us. The standing figure [at Mass] belongs to the priest who speaks these words, the power and the grace belong to God. 'This is my body,' he says. This sentence transforms the offerings."
Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) wrote, "He used a demonstrative mode of speech, `This is my body' and 'This is my blood,' to prevent your thinking that what is seen is a figure; on the contrary what has truly been offered is transformed in a hidden way by the all-powerful God into Christ's body and blood. When we have become partakers of Christ's body and blood, we receive the living giving, sanctifying power of Christ."
Berengarius, recanting from his error, made on oath a profession of faith to Pope Gregory VII:
"With my heart I believe, with my mouth I acknowledge, that the mystery of the sacred prayer and our Redeemer's words are responsible for a substantial change in the bread and wine, which are put on the altar, into Jesus Christ our Lord's own, true, life-giving flesh and blood. I acknowledge, too, that they are, after consecration, Christ's true body which was born of the Virgin, which hung on the cross as an offering for the salvation of the world and which is seated at the right hand of the Father, and Christ's true blood which flowed out of his side: they are not such simply because of the sacrament's symbolism and power, but as constituted by nature and as true substances."
It may be as well to quote here the explanation of a leading modern theologian. Louis Bouyer, a priest who was formerly a Lutheran minister and has for many years been one of the leading Catholic lecturers and writers, says, "Transubstantiation is a name given in the Church . . . Although Tertullian had already used the word, Christian antiquity preferred the Greek expression metabole, translated into Latin by conversio.
"The word transubstantiation came to be used by preference during the Middle Ages, both as a reaction against certain theologians like Ratramus, who tended to see in the Eucharist only a virtual and not a real presence of the body and blood of the Lord, and against others like Paschasius Radbertus, who expressed his presence as if it were a question of a material and sensible one.
"To speak of transubstantiation comes down then to stating that it is indeed the very reality of the body of Christ that we have on the altar after the consecration, yet in a way inaccessible to the senses and in such a manner that it is neither multiplied by the multiplicity of the species, nor divided in anyway by their division, nor passible [subject to suffering] in anyway whatsoever.
In conclusion we cannot do better than quote the words of the Imitation of Christ: "You must beware of curious and useless searching into this most profound sacrament. He who is a scrutineer of majesty will be overwhelmed by its glory."
Any particular place you want me to begin with, or do you want me to just jump in with both feet?
Ah, but if it is transformed, why then does Jesus tell us that it would turn back into wine again in the new age? Or are you saying that Jesus intends to drink His own blood at His Second Coming?
Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom."Dr Eckleburg, I believe you have an appropriate link/article for the Catholics to read...
- Matthew 26:27-29
The priest turns from the altar and presents the Host and Chalice to the kneeling faithful of the parish. “Behold the Lamb of God; behold He Who taketh away the sins of the world, “ he intones. “Happy are those who art called to His supper.”
In his frail hands, the priest holds aloft the Body and Blood of God Himself.
This is the New Age. The Kingdom of God is here, now.
Blasphemous garbage - please don’t ping me to nonsense like this again.
Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.-- Luther's Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.
Ah, but that was on another thread. Somebody ping Narses! He says the dragging of complaints from thread to thread is a violation of the TOS for this site.
Blasphemy: impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.
Is it blasphemy to read aloud from the Holy Bible and follow the mandates therein or is it blasphemy to deny that these words are even in the Holy Bible when simply opening Scripture will show you otherwise?
No, it’s blasphemous to twist the holy word of God to mean what you want it to mean, to support centuries of spiritual whoredom.
Transubstantiation is simply wrong. If you can’t discern by the Holy Spirit and by a study of Scripture, contextually, what is metaphoric, what is literal, what is hyperbolic, what is symbolic, and what is poetic without consulting the Mystical Magical Magisterium or blindly following history, then you will remain in spiritual darkness.
Again, please don’t ping me to this garbage.
Wagglebee and NYer were just opening a discussion of the article. ItsOurTime, you seem very upset and hostile for no clear reason. I’m sure your strong response will be respected and no one will ping you on matters of faith if you ask. You seem somehow quite angry over a benign doctrine which has been an integral part of one of the world’s largest and greatest religions for over 2000 years. If you can only express how angry you are, why not just drop out of the conversation? I’m sure no one meant to offend you.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Review this later.
Always jump in with both feet, it gets more interesting that way.
John 6 is pretty specific last time I checked.
Another good one! Thank you! I’m going to send this one to DH. He’s really enjoying the apologetics side of things.
Do you see a complaint? I don't.
At the Last Supper, Christ says, “This is my body.”
“This is my blood.”
Do this in remembrance of me.”
All the proof I need from the Bible.
**its blasphemous to twist the holy word of God to mean what you want it to mean**
But Protestants do this all the time. We call it YOPIOS.
So, your view of blasphemy is that it's wrong to follow what the Bible says because you happen to disagree with it. The FACT that you belong to some religious group that was formed some fifteen centuries after the Resurrection, which believes things that the majority of Christians in the world have NEVER believed, would seem to indicate that the "spiritual whoredom" has occurred sometime within the past five centuries.
Transubstantiation is simply wrong.
The fact that YOU don't believe something doesn't make it right or wrong. However, the fact that it is clearly demonstrated in Scripture makes it true.
If you cant discern by the Holy Spirit and by a study of Scripture, contextually, what is metaphoric, what is literal, what is hyperbolic, what is symbolic, and what is poetic without consulting the Mystical Magical Magisterium or blindly following history, then you will remain in spiritual darkness.
When the Lord says, "Do THIS," there is not much left to discern.
Again, please dont ping me to this garbage.
I never pinged you, I am simply responding to your posts.
What do you think He does when He presides at every Mass?
61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
-- John 6:61-65
So, our Lord knew that the Eucharist would scandalize some, but He was unapologetic about it.
Then there is what Paul wrote:
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
-- 1 Corinthians 11:26-30
Now, how can one be unworthy of a symbol? How can one be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord if it is mere hyperbole? And why is Paul writing about this more than two decades AFTER the Resurrection if Christians were not already partaking in the Eucharist? These are questions that I have NEVER seen any Protestant adequately respond to (though most ignore them altogether).
You are not alone in these feelings. John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:5152).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literallyand correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:5356).
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:1214).
No, its blasphemous to twist the holy word of God to mean what you want it to mean, to support centuries of spiritual whoredom.
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
And He made it clear that rejection of the Eucharist is betrayal of Him.
An anticipation of a food fight here is a given. The Screeching Swarm just descends on these sorts of things, and nothing good ever comes of it. It does no good to say that debate is always healthy. It isn't, especially when, as the long, sorry history of this forum demonstrates, the subject matter is almost invariably hijacked to at least some degree, sometimes to a level that makes one suppose that a highly predictable scandal of the Faith has ensued. It is not right to subject God, the Saints, or the holy doctrines of the Faith to the nether regions-inspired, printed vomit of The Swarm. The very capable Catholic apologists here have only so many fingers to stick in the dike when too many threads like this go on site uncaucused. Burnout is definitely becoming a problem for some of them. In any event, most have to work, too, and can only jump in as time allows. Caucusing still allows the message to be read by all, yet protects holy things from being dragged through the mud by people who are either ignorant or nefariously motivated. A more clear and apt application of Matthew 7:6 cannot be found.
Proposal: If threads treating to Catholic doctrine that are eligible for caucus status are, in fact, not caucused, then the poster should be willing to field all of the naysayers on his or her own. "You posted it, then you block time all day to defend it." The lack of discernment here sometimes is eye-rollingly distressing. For God's sake, people, let's use some sense and caucus threads whenever the guidelines are met! Let's not subject even the Eucharist to the vile and disingenuous spew from The Screeching Swarm!
Thanks for the info. I pretty much knew this was the Catholic take on those scriptures, but this is a good summary of why Catholics believe what they do about the Eucharist.
Glad it was helpful to you. Guess you're now ready for part 2 - The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - A Primer for Clueless Catholics.
The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. `Where shall I begin, please your Majesty?' he asked.
`Begin at the beginning,' the King said gravely, `and go on till you come to the end: then stop.'
--Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.
No food fights. Caucused threads may thwart attack but stymie discussion. There are fellow freepers with total misunderstandings of the Catholic faith and here is an opportunity to enlighten, address and involve everyone. The Religion Moderator will take care of any miscreants.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
Did you notice in the scripture that even after the blessing and consecration of the bread, and just before it is eaten, the bread is still only bread. It's not flesh or body or divinity or soul or spirit or anything else. It's still only bread -- consecrated bread, but bread nonetheless.
I guess Paul and the early church were just not privy to the magic formulae discovered by the Transubstantiationists --
This observation I found particularly brilliant. Scholastic language doesn't come easy to most of us today (myself included), so we don't need to go into a whole philosophical discussion of accidence vs. substance. What we simply need to ascertain is what Christianity has always said that the Eucharist *is*.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."I'll grant you that the language here is somewhat ambiguous as it does refer to bread. But Paul is also quite clearly connecting this bread with the Body and Blood of the Lord.
I can see how this passage can be thought to support consubstantiation ala the Lutheran understanding, but certainly not a wholesale rejection of the Body and Blood. That's just not supported.
Thank you. I can not agree with you more.
I have, over time, come to question the motivation of those posters who do not use the caucus designation. Why do they “cast pearls before swine” when they know full well that the pearls will be trampled. Is this not being an accessory to sin, when it causes others to blaspheme holy things?
It is something that all should consider before posting.
What's the magic formula for the inspired nature of Scripture? What does "inspired" look like? Sound like? Feel like? I look at the Bible, and I just see paper and ink. If it's more than that, you need to prove concretely that the Bible is more than just a book, just as you expect concrete proof that the bread is no longer substantially "bread" but the substance of Christ. What do you see and why?
I believe that what Paul is saying is that if you don't believe the Gospel, then you shouldn't be partaking of the Lord's Supper.
Paul tells you what is really happening when one eats the bread and drinks the cup. He doesn't say that you are eating the body and drinking the blood, but:
"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."
You are showing the Lord's death until he comes. You are proclaiming half of the Gospel -- the death half. The other half of the Gospel is the resurrection half.
Furthermore, if he is in the bread that you are eating, then he has already come. So what's to show ??? He's clearly not in the bread otherwise Paul could not and would not have written this.
Pipeorganman, I understand where you're coming from but this is a dicussion forum, and there are plenty of folks on here who are up for a reasonable discussion. I hardly think it's fair to characterize all of them as...well...what that parable implies! :)
Proof is found every day in your own circles because the magisterium and the church fathers that the magisterium revere quote the scriptures religiously as authoritative justification for the things they write about and speak about. They may not understand all those scriptures but they all realize that they are inspired by God and pepper their writings with them in hopes that the inspiration will fall off and dust their own words, uninspired as their own words may be. But thanks for asking --
But he does say you are eating the body and blood of the Lord. Verse 27 says whoever eats and drinks unworthily “will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord”. And go to verse 29...”For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.”
On the second coming argument, you make an interesting point, but one doesn’t exclude the other. Surely you’ve noticed in the Gospel this “tension” about the Second Coming that academics and liberals love to point out. That the Christian community believed Christ was coming soon—within “this generation”? That “tension” is largely an academic fiction IMHO, and results directly from academics not recognizing that Christ was believed in the earliest days to be coming at the end of the world *and* was held to be coming at evey divine liturgy. This is somewhat speculative on my part, but I think recognizing the Eucharistic sensibilities of the early Christians largely solves the “problem” of the Second Coming that all the academics love to rave about. There was no problem at all. Christ did come in the form of the Eucharist within that very generation, and he will come Himself without the sacramental veil at the end of time. I believe both comings are touched on by Paul in 1 Cor 11:26.
Show me anywhere at all in the church father’s writing where the real prescence is denied. Just one example in the first 3,4, or 500 hundred years after our Lord’s crucifixion. Just one little teensy example.
I can show you many, many examples (including Jesus’ own words) where it IS His body and blood.
I can see how this passage can be thought to support consubstantiation ala the Lutheran understanding, but certainly not a wholesale rejection of the Body and Blood. That's just not supported.
Very good points. I might add that Paul also demonstrated the importance Christians placed on the Eucharist more than two decades AFTER the Resurrection. They understood that it truly is the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Also, as I mentioned in another thread, in John 6, the Lord makes it clear that the Eucharist is the Bread of Life and how much greater it is than the Manna the Israelites received from Heaven. However, the Manna REALLY DID feed the Israelites, how can a tiny wafer be greater than that unless it is truly the Body of Christ?
There are approximately 2.1 billion Christians in the world, of those there are 1.05 billion Catholics, 240 million Eastern Orthodox, 73 million Anglicans, 70 million Methodists and 64 million Lutherans ALL of whom accept (to varying degrees), the Real Presence in the Eucharist. This means that nearly three quarters of Christians accept what the Lord said, the small minority that rejects the Bread of Life should ask themselves why they are rejecting Him.
But I thought the Bible was full of errors and contradictions, NYer. After all, it says the universe was created in six days less than six thousand years ago. For that matter, so did your church fathers, though I notice you choose to reject them on this. So why not reject their teaching on the "eucharist" as well?
Once again, the validity of spiritual truth is inversely proportional to the number of words needed to relate it. ;)
This is my blood.
Do this in remembrance of me.
All the proof I need from the Bible.
Salvation, you're a sweet person, but I hope--I truly, honestly hope--you can see how infuriating it is to read Catholics saying "the Bible says it, therefore it must be so" when they want to subject the words of Genesis to a withering rationalist/modernist critique.
Are you aware that NYer, who started this thread, has said that the Bible is full of contradictions and you can't go by what it says? What right does she have then to turn right around and start "Bible-thumping" to prove anything???
To the best of my knowledge, all scholars (Catholic and Protestant) are in agreement that Paul wrote his the First Epistle to the Corinthians somewhere between 53 and 57 AD, BEFORE any of the Gospels had been written. Protestants seem to operate under the assumption that all Christians have always had a Bible handy at all times, this did not happen until at least the Sixteenth Century.
Furthermore, if he is in the bread that you are eating, then he has already come. So what's to show ??? He's clearly not in the bread otherwise Paul could not and would not have written this.
Paul clearly did say this, he called it the Body of the Lord.
Again I will ask, how can the Body of Life be greater than Manna from Heaven if it is nothing more than a wafer while Manna provided actual nourishment?
As the Fathers are minim, it's neither here nor there to you, but at least I want to minimize any internal inconsistency that you are seeing. :)