Five Reasons I Reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation

Reclaiming the Mind Credo House ^ | March 8, 2013 | C Michael Patton

[Mad Dawg]

D00d, we're evil and we dwell in the midst of evil people. We teach what we don't teach and don't teach what we do teach.

We're not only evil, but we're quite remarkably stupid. So it would never occur to us that it would be wrong to think that a priest can Zap God the Son of God, down to our altars. And if a Protestant claims that we teach such-and-such it is irrelevant that our great doctors taught the precise opposite almost 1,500 and more than 750 years ago. They're Catholic, they didn't mean it.

We're bad to the bone.

[Mad Dawg]

Crafty AND obfuscatory! I am quite the villain! And Clintonesque. Is there no depth to which I will not sink?

It looks like my well was poisoned before I opened my mouth. Quibus rebus factis, there’s no longer any point in my saying a thing.

[MHGinTN]

LOL undistributed middle! Nicely played ... if this were a game. It is far more serious than that.

[Mad Dawg]

I have yet to defend the truth of the doctrine. All I’ve attempted on this thread was to clarify the doctrine, whether it was true or false.

If I were a Protestant and someone said, say, Spurgeon teaches such and such, and I knew he didn’t I would go to Spurgeon to see. BUt since I’m a Catholic that sort of thing is “mumbo jumbo.”

[Springfield Reformer]

I won't take too long on this (yeah, riiight).  I am going over the ST questions you recommended, 75-77, annotating them with my further objections, of which so far there are several. I expect this to take some time, so I do not want to hold things up as you wait for a response that may take weeks. So at this point I'm just going to reiterate that I seriously do not see how he overcomes the sheer confusion of "real accidents."

(BTW, yes, I agree his response to objection three under Q75.1 was pathetically inconclusive, which I find to be helpful to my analysis).

By way of an alternate demonstration, consider this example from object oriented programming. We create a class called "marble."  It is capable of accepting a wide range of shape-defining parameters, covering a full range of efficiencies, from very good to very bad marbles.  But there are some criteria it must meet to function as a marble.  We have defined the idea of "marble."

Now we create an instance, an actual marble.  But by a miracle, we delete the defining class.  Now the instance has no definer.  No instance of an idea can survive the deletion of the idea.  This is not the stuff of miracles, but the abandonment of God-given reason.  It is an internal error in the logic.  

So lets try another form of the experiment. In terms of Christ, we can I am sure agree He is Himself an instance, and therefore more than an idea.  So we have deferred the problem by creating an intermediate stage.  The idea of Christ is expressed in one and only one instance, Jesus.  This instance has all the properties required by the defining class, including human physicality, a design requirement that is not negotiable.

Now we  create an instance of bread.  This bread instance is based on the defining class for bread.  The attributes required by the definition that give bread it's "what-ness" are all present. The formless stuff that could have been anything else (matter) is now assembled as an instance of bread.

Now we delete the defining class for bread, but, by a miracle, retain all the "what-ness" of bread, yet without it being physical. But, as a physical object, being physical is part of it's "what-ness."  It was in the defining class that this kind of bread, the kind we can eat physically, has to be physical. So now we have a dire contradiction.  What is the solution?

If I understand your proposal, you are saying that the instance of Christ, i.e., Jesus, whose defining class also has a "body-ness" requirement, just like the bread, meets that requirement by borrowing the orphaned "body-ness" accidents of the bread.  There are a number of defects to this solution:

1) As already noted, an instance cannot survive the deletion of the idea it expresses.  That is simply irrational.  We can interpose an intermediate stage where the general definition for bread survives, and we derive a secondary definition, with presumably more detailed definitional attributes, that define our local instance, and then delete that derived definition, and we would still have a master class defining general "bread-ness" and our local instance could survive that, sort of, but it would lose whatever disappeared with the loss of the secondary definition, such as a specific location in space-time.  This would make it very difficult to eat.  Just sayin' ...

2) As noted in my earlier post, even if we could suppose a way to orphan the accidents that express the bread's substance, according to Aquinas, they do not acquire Christ as a new subject or new substance, but have as their referent precisely nothing. They are subjectless.  Apparently, in this state, they exist to create the perception of bread that isn't really there, as well as obscure that the whole Christ is there.  Therefore they do not meet the "Christ class" requirement of being "accidents of body" to Christ. They cannot be referentless and have a referent at the same time in the same way.  Law of non-contradiction.

As for any "express denial" of cannibalism, I have no doubt that the intent of Aquinas' project was in part to preserve a sense of sacramental realism while at the same time creating plausible deniability against the charge of an overly crude realism, the sort of thing the Eucharistic miracles of the period might tend to reinforce in the minds of the rank and file.  In shorter form, it was an effort to have it both ways.

And our point here is that we do not think that project succeeded. My evangelical compatriots may be expressing it in different terms, but the intuition is the same. It is as if to say a defendant could be absolved of any crime simply by making an explicit denial.  If that were true, we would have no one in our prisons. The question is not whether there is a claim of innocence, but whether the proposed solution demonstrates that innocence. We contend it does not.

All of this is tempered, of course, by the fact that I am still looking at the Summa in the areas you suggested.  My preliminary review did not turn up any exculpatory evidence so far, but I'm interested in making sure I've done due diligence to a level that you would consider satisfactory.  With that in mind, I hope you will give me some time to digest the material and get back to you with further thoughts.

(BTW, just as a quick footnote, ST Part 1 Q50 on angels notwithstanding, I do not think you can dismiss the ordinariness of the physicality of the resurrected Jesus without sliding rapidly toward docetism. I am not sure why that approach would be useful to you.  If anything, it would, at least to me, suggest another good reason to distrust transubstantiation, if indeed that is where it leads, and a reason I had never considered before our conversation.)

Peace,

SR

[imardmd1]

Without question, the principal ordinances instituted by Jesus are:

(1) Love one another)

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (Jn. 13:34-35 AV)
Note: Tis commandment is addressed to the assembly believers as a unit, the verb agapao in the second person plural.

(2) )Solemnly convene the local assembly of believers and observe the Ordinance of Remembrance often to show Christ's cross-death

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,
That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat:
this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had
supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood:
this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me" (1 Cor. 11:23-25 AV).
Note: The command was given to the same group, convened by the Lord in solemn affirmation of their unity (Jn. 17). Again, the verb "do" is second person plural. But the context is that Paul is striving for unity of the Corinthian church through solemn convocation of its members.

(3) )As you are going, recruit, baptize, and indoctrinate committed disciples

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: . . ." (Mt 19:20a AV).
Again, the core disciple apostle were gathered together, wherein Jesus deputized them to go and recruit followers by disciplizing them, baptizing them, and congregating the disciples to teach them whatsoever Christ had commanded, without changing the intents of the commands in any way whatsoever.

(4) Preach the gospel of repentance from sin and faith toward God to every being

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and
preach the gospel to every creature" (Mk> 16:15 AV).
"And that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things" (Lk. 24:47-48 AV).
"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is
come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in
Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the
uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8 AV).
Note: Again, the commandment was to the proto-church to
execute the preaching of the gospel in every land to
all the people. No member of the church was excused from this
dutiful profession.

========

[Mad Dawg]

Completely terrific post! I'm especially intrigued with the aside about crypto-docetism. Somebody else referred to Paul's huge rant in Corinthians 15 about resurrection. At some point we should go rooting for truffles there.

As I said privately, today will be busy for me. But Imma get back to this as soon as I can. Thanks for a serious and thoughtful contribution.

Aquinas, to me, is a little like jumping into cold water. I have a devout Catholic professor friend who says he still finds Aquinas more alien than the ancients. And there are times when I find myself going, “Really? Nah ...”

I wanted to add to what I said to an earlier post: Dante, the Commedia, is “Aquinas set to music.”

[Gene Eric]

>> In before the catholics.

That’s like so #ing mature...

[imardmd1]

They want the man who is doing miracles, that just must be result of God with the man, to tell them what they must do so they can be doing what God requires to earn eternal life . . .

This is a nice, high-minded explanation, but I think the overlooked true explanation is real simple. Here's what I see:

The jail-house lawyers of the crowd were giving a public challenge to Jesus, and they probably already had seen too much trickery from false messiahs. I believe they were saying that since the big hero Moses proved that he had influence with God by getting Him to rain down manna food for everybody at no cost, that Jesus could prove he was also a genuine Messiah like Moses by keeping on supplying them with free miracle bread like they saw the previous day; and not do it just once (maybe He had tricked them, one time to hook them), but could He keep on doing it? For this they were willing to back Him to the hilt.

The motive was laziness, greed, and lust for power. Such a view is entirely consistent with His response to them as to why they were seeking him out. But once they tumbled to the fact that He was promising what they saw as pie in the sky delusions, they just walked away without looking back.

Now, what do you-all think of that, eh?

[BlueDragon]

"Anyway, I wish the opponents of the dogma would read the relevant part of the Summa. It would save time.

Hey great, but the link which you provided is 404 non-functional.

I would wish that most all of the "defenders" (yourself, and seemingly one or few others excepted?) would also read and understand --- and perhaps accept that proponents of the dogma often do not appear to know all that well, what they are talking about, either.

No, not when alleged eucharistic 'miracles' are trotted out in support of corporeal sense of "Presence" of His actual flesh and blood body, and when that type of thing (eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, for example) is challenged, a typical sort of response be that the miracle was sent/performed by God in order to "build faith in" ...wait for it...transubstantiation...which among many Roman Catholics (but not all) apparently includes internalized conceptualization that real and actual flesh and blood (of Christ) near(?) exactly as our own human flesh and blood is (he WAS fully man, while also fully God, thus the flesh "human" as our own) be truly present under the mere outwards appearances of the bread and wine, etc.

It is the doctrine itself, and wordings employed in describing it which unavoidably bring inclusion of an "incarnational" sense of corporeality be part of what is being said that RC priests (alone?) "reach up into heaven" to bring Christ to earth, etc., that is among key central aspects of what is perceived to be RCC eucharistic theology --- which is opposed by a great many.

It is scarcely the fault of the Protestants who reject the doctrines and dogma in regard to transubstantiation, as the RCC describes that to be, for there are many treatments and descriptions, which when examined beyond mere rote repetition of wordings, as for the ramifications of those wordings, can be shown to carry within those descriptions inherent contradictions within the descriptions themselves, with some considerations also being contrary to Scripture, and significantly large portions of early Church tradition.

Thousands and thousands of times over on the pages of FR there have been [Roman] Catholics bashing 'Protestants' over the head with the issue while arguing for seeming strict literal corporeal flesh "presence".

You can't criticize the teaching coherently because — if you're going to call substance “literal figurative” — you aren't talking about the dogma but about a misunderstanding of it.

Lack of coherence? Well sir, you may have attempted to show just what -- and just how 'what', was being misunderstood, yet I've yet to see that be coherently done.

Where more precisely, does this lack of coherence originate? Don't look at me, jelly-bean, I was not the one who invented this massive mess.

What makes it so bloody (pun intended) difficult to talk about, is that as I've mentioned -- most "defenders", either don't know what they are talking about, else are so poor at describing what is going on they add to confusion concerning the subject.

There is also the aspect (and this is significant) wherein among Catholics, different individuals apparently internalize (thus inwardly understand, think, or else assume) in differing ways the words of the very same, near-identically parroted argument, and many think they are (of course) entirely correct, and then when hearing similar wordings from other Roman Catholics, assume that most everyone is on the same page, when that is not necessarily so, due to how the internalization of metaphysical/philosophical terminology is applied to that which is of Spirit, but at the same time is attempted to be explained as also highly specialized form of(?) "incarnational" secret decoder ring(?) type of thinking.

At this point I can just hear 'em (my many critics) thinking smugly to themselves, that I can't know it, if I've not experienced "it" ---meaning the profound way that the Lord can be and minister to one's deepest inwards portions of soul and being, when partaking of communion. But they (my critics, that vast herd) are wrong, I do know, or else I would not be able to speak of this...

As for what comes across as 'Catholic belief' when listening to [Roman] Catholics talk about eucharist, it seems to me that many hold to what could be referred to as more of a spiritualized view than they'd care to openly admit, extended even to what is otherwise spoken of his "actual" flesh and blood presence. Others, from listening to them, seem to hold more centrally corporeal presence type of thinking, and then yet for still more variety of other internalized opinions ---- the apparent mainstream --- combine the two --- leaving things to be something of a having things both ways, and thus often resulting in arguing things first one way, then another, depending upon which 'Catholic' is doing the talking at any one time.

But we are told --- "you don't understand". On the contrary, I myself understand it well enough. How much must a person know, anyway? I found it much easier to find (the spirit of) the Lord when I hadn't been subjected to The Difficulties with Romanism, as Faber put it. This stuff gives me a headache, more like a heartache disturbance, in my spirit. Life was funner when I was more dummer.

I will add here also, that the term "literal figurative" likely as not may have come to this forum by my own clattering keyboard, in an effort to encapsulate and convey sense of a "spiritual" rather than carnal, corporeal eating/partaking of Holy Communion, while also including consideration for the physical bread and wine, as for what those literally are in their own substance.

Though it may go without saying;
I do maintain that the bread and wine, on most fundamentally literal, physical levels, retains in that purely physical sense, their original properties of "substance", yet upon consecration become the figure(s) and essence of the spiritual realities which those substances then represent. How's that for paraphrasing Augustine, eh fr.?

I perceive that the way I just made effort to describe this subject was the way much of the early Church viewed εὐχαριστία (eucharista), (if they contemplated upon it much at all). There seems to be (more than?) a few Roman Catholics who could for the most part, agree with myself that its similar to their own view also. Yet, that very sort of postulation/idea has in past eras been declared by the Latin Church to be "heresy", as possibly exampled in positional controversy between Ratramnus and Paschasius Radbertus in the 9th century, then echoed a couple of centuries or so later between Berengar and Lanfranc.

Radbertus evidently having argued for a physicality/corporeal presence in combination with the previously, more widely prevailing spiritual view, much as to how Augustine, and many other early Church luminaries, like Chrysostom, can be reasonably enough seen to have held those views towards the nature and 'substance' of the bread and wine, after consecration. The 'substance' of the bread and wine itself -- not suffering annihilation, although terminology like "annihilation" was not used in ancient times in regards to eucharist, to say what does not occur to the bread and wine.

Did this conversation begin on note of individuals' (and even entire church's) beliefs being misstated by those whom held differing views, or what? Well, guess what?

That apparently happened to Berengar, and possibly Ratranmus before him. And now, it does seem to me (no offense intended towards yourself, personally) that Catholics will, at times, either misrepresent official RCC dogmas when the wording of those is criticized (at those junctures inconvenient, & difficult to defend) often enough for reason of what the interplay between collections of statements unavoidably result in, in their ramifications, once everything is examined for what those things (ideas, really) can be shown objectively enough to mean, and once the discussion can be pried far enough away from apologists, and sophists with agendas (whom will invent special circumstance pleadings to paper over difficulties) that anything like objective analysis can be conducted, in the first place.

Philip Schaff, History of the Church, Volume IV, Mediaeval Christianity § 125. The Two Theories of the Lord’s Supper

The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper became the subject of two controversies in the Western church, especially in France. The first took place in the middle of the ninth century between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus, the other in the middle of the eleventh century between Berengar and Lanfranc. In the second, Pope Hildebrand was implicated, as mediator between Berengar and the orthodox party.

In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. The one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith. The transubstantiationists (if we may coin this term) believed that the eucharistic body of Christ was identical with his historical body, and was miraculously created by the priestly consecration of the elements in every sacrifice of the mass; their opponents denied this identity, and regarded the eucharistic body as a symbolical exhibition of his real body once sacrificed on the cross and now glorified in heaven, yet present to the believer with its life-giving virtue and saving power.

We find both these views among the ancient fathers. The realistic and mystical view fell in more easily with the excessive supernaturalism and superstitious piety of the middle age, and triumphed at last both in the Greek and Latin churches; for there is no material difference between them on this dogma.702 The spiritual theory was backed by the all-powerful authority of St. Augustin in the West, and ably advocated by Ratramnus and Berengar, but had to give way to the prevailing belief in transubstantiation until, in the sixteenth century, the controversy was revived by the Reformers, and resulted in the establishment of three theories: 1) the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, re-asserted by the Council of Trent; 2) the Lutheran theory of the real presence in the elements, retaining their substance;703 and 3) the Reformed (Calvinistic) theory of a spiritual real or dynamic presence for believers. In the Roman church (and herein the Greek church fully agrees with her), the doctrine of transubstantiation is closely connected with the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, which forms the centre of worship.

It is humiliating to reflect that, the commemorative feast of Christ’s dying love, which should be the closest bond of union between believers, innocently gave rise to the most violent controversies. But the same was the case with the still more important doctrine of Christ’s Person. Fortunately, the spiritual benefit of the sacrament does not depend upon any particular human theory of the mode of Christ’s presence, who is ever ready to bless all who love him.

___________________________________________________________________

Footnote 702 The Greek fathers do not, indeed, define the real presence as transubstantiatio or μετουσίωσις, but Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and John of Damascus use similar terms which imply a miraculous change of the elements.

___________________________________________________________________

703 The Lutheran theory, as formulated by the Formula of Concord, is usually and conveniently styled consubstantiation, in distinction from transubstantiation; but Lutheran divines disown the term, because they confine the real presence to the time and act of the sacramental fruition, and hence reject the adoration of the consecrated elements.

___________________________________________________________________

I took liberty to boldhighlight that last portion of Schaff's above comment, since I do much agree with him there, yet myself have taken notice of slight but significant difference between Orthodox description of eucharistic process, which does not share the same identical sacerdotalism which is among chief aspects in regards to the theological claims and descriptions of RCC Mass. But mere mention of that will need suffice, for the time being.

---

Back to the regularly scheduled program;

§ 126. The Theory of Paschasius Radbertus.

Paschasius Radbertus (from 800 to about 865), a learned, devout and superstitious monk, and afterwards abbot of Corbie or Corvey in France704 is the first who clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation as then believed by many, and afterwards adopted by the Roman Catholic church. He wrote a book “on the Body and Blood of the Lord,” composed for his disciple Placidus of New Corbie in the year 831, and afterwards reedited it in a more popular form, and dedicated it to the Emperor Charles the Bald, as a Christmas gift (844). He did not employ the term transubstantiation, which came not into use till two centuries later; but he taught the thing, namely, that “the substance of bread and wine is effectually changed (efficaciter interius commutatur) into the flesh and blood of Christ,” so that after the priestly consecration there is “nothing else in the eucharist but the flesh and blood of Christ,” although “the figure of bread and wine remain” to the senses of sight, touch, and taste. The change is brought about by a miracle of the Holy Spirit, who created the body of Christ in the womb of the Virgin without cohabitation, and who by the same almighty power creates from day to day, wherever the mass is celebrated, the same body and blood out of the substance of bread and wine. He emphasizes the identity of the eucharistic body with the body which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven; yet on the other hand he represents the sacramental eating and drinking as a spiritual process by faith. He therefore combines the sensuous and spiritual conceptions. He assumes that the soul of the believer communes with Christ, and that his body receives an imperishable principle of life which culminates at last in the resurrection. He thus understood, like several of the ancient fathers, the words of our Saviour: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54).

He supports his doctrine by the words of institution in their literal sense, and by the sixth chapter of John. He appealed also to marvellous stories of the visible appearances of the body and blood of Christ for the removal of doubts or the satisfaction of the pious desire of saints. The bread on the altar, he reports, was often seen in the shape of a lamb or a little child, and when the priest stretched out his hand to break the bread, an angel descended from heaven with a knife, slaughtered the lamb or the child, and let his blood run into a cup!

Such stories were readily believed by the people, and helped to strengthen the doctrine of transubstantiation; as the stories of the appearances of departed souls from purgatory confirmed the belief in purgatory.

The book of Radbert created a great sensation in the West, which was not yet prepared to accept the doctrine of transubstantiation without a vigorous struggle. Radbert himself admits that some of his contemporaries believed only in a spiritual communion of the soul with Christ, and substituted the mere virtue of his body and blood for the real body and blood, i.e., as he thinks, the figure for the verity, the shadow for the substance.

His opponents appealed chiefly to St. Augustin, who made a distinction between the historical and the eucharistic body of Christ, and between a false material and a true spiritual fruition of his body and blood. In a letter to the monk Frudegard, who quoted several passages of Augustin, Radbert tried to explain them in his sense. For no divine of the Latin church dared openly to contradict the authority of the great African teacher.

---

following extract from

Schaff, History of the Church, Volume IV, Mediaeval Christianity § 128. The Berengar Controversy.

This explains also the conduct of Gregory VII., which is all the more remarkable, as he was in every other respect the most strenuous champion of the Roman church and the papal power. This great pope was more an ecclesiastic than a theologian. He was willing to allow a certain freedom on the mysterious mode of the eucharistic presence and the precise nature of the change in the elements, which at that time had not yet been authoritatively defined as a change of substance. ..."

Substance. Is that a key word within the term transubstantiation, or what? Let us keep a close eye upon that word, and closer still, keep track of how it is was understood and applied, where and by whom.

So where are we at now? Would the above which was borrowed from Schaff, once the information were to be digested and the ensuant ramifications be understood, not indicate that those among the Roman Catholic Church today whom deny that the RCC teaches inclusively of there being literal corporeal presence of Christ in the consecrated host, yet still that the host (wafer) is become Christ's own "flesh and blood" as it were, in yet some other sense, not be in a general sense, agreeing with Berengar? And if so, then agreeing with *some of* at least, the Protestant 'heretics' too?

On the other hand, apparently its desired to incorporate and fully accept (as if it was like unto holy writ) Trentine language & description, that the "real and actual" flesh and blood of Christ be present, much as per Radbert and Lanfranc delineated the argument, and yet further agreement with later arising Scholastic -sourced teachings, such as; that the substance of the bread itself has been annihilated, the "substance" of the bread having been transformed in it's very underlying ~substance~ to not there be "bread" any longer, at all, not one whit, the "accident" of the outwards appearances of the bread and wine; touch, taste, feel and smell having alone been left behind; while a different substance, even Christ's own real and actual flesh and blood having taken their place.

How then could those Catholics, at the same time deny that the RCC teaches that Christ is in flesh and blood body actually present, along with His divinity, and entirety of 'person' of Deity --- which as expressed is said to be the very same exact body.

No hint was supplied in recent past centuries official eucharistic 'teachings' as for that body which is so much spoken of as being again placed on altar, as one would the sacrifices which had been slain, and to be burned up, as for that body which is now with the Father in heaven, gone back to where He was before, and now, seated at the right hand of the Father, for having been transformed into incorruptible. Risen and now Ascended up to heaven, thus heavenly flesh(?), which was indeed flesh enough (not a ghost) when He rose from the grave, then later Ascended into the clouds -- quite literally ---- but instead the wording focuses upon the flesh of Christ as it was when crucified, even there immolated, I suppose as a way of tying it all together. Yet---- we need not immolate Him yet again, but more as in epiclesis -- invite and receive Him as Living God, instead.

In RCC eucharist descriptions as coming from centuries ago scholastics, Christ is said, is being immolated by the priests even yet again, in some way (or else there be no "sacrifice" being "confected" and presided over by a sacerdotal priest) yet not immolated at the same time (hoo-kAY, whatever you say) a "different" immolation as per Aquinas, here.

The absurdity resembles the production of some satirist, who wished to ridicule the mystery, or some visionary, who had labored to bring forth nonsense. A person feels humbled in having to oppose such inconsistency, and scarcely knows whether to weep over the imbecility of his own species, or to vent his bursting indignation against the imposters, who lost to all sense of shame, obtruded this mass of contradictions on man. History, in all its ample folios, displays, in the deceiving and the deceived, no equal instance of assurance of assurance and credulity. [Samuel Edgar, The Variations of Popery1838 p.382]

Could anyone really be expected (anyone who is paying close attention) to not come to the conclusion that this is madness? And that's including Anglican, Presbyterian, possibly Methodists, and even Pentecostal sorts who have their own ways of conceptualizing what "real presence" is, yet most generally on pneumatic (spirit) lines of thought, if they are not strictly memorialist about it in regards to the Lord's Supper. Even those last, some of whom are possible among the most open to pneumatic -- in reading the Word, thus in that way dining upon Him, having him speak to them inwardly to mind and spirit, seeking Him in the smallest crumbs, at times, where His incarnational presence (within themselves and others) may be found?

But the RCC terminology and descriptions? ---Scholastics gone wild, like yankee college sophomores on Spring Break down in Lauderdal...just different.

Where is the sought for coherence for those amid Catholicism who adhere to more spiritualized view, if this second immolation be an unbloody one, yet the actual body & blood still be there, lurking as it were (but to be worshiped in this form!) under the assumed identity of left-behind accidents of the substances (of the bread and wine), those substances having been replaced by the ~very same~ body of Christ which was born in form of man, by way of the virgin, Mary?

I have a possible solution, something to think about, to consider; many of today's Roman Catholics (those whom do not inwardly within themselves subscribe to notions of there being a physical corporeality, inclusive of actual and real human flesh & blood, as we would otherwise, in most any other setting think of that 'substance') have quite possibly, inwardly taken & understood the word 'substance' when applied to eucharistic description, to be in realm of poetical and figurative (but yet "real" in true spiritual sense) all along, yet without noticing within themselves they have done so! While here and there elsewhere among Catholics, there is at the same time those who hold to a much more forcefully harsh & literal understanding of that one word, ~substance~.

beginning at page 392, transcribed by hand from

The Variations of Popery by Samual Edgar (earliest publication date 1838, established from this source)

it becomes clear through the extensiveness of Edgar's coverage of history of the doctrine, and his well informed discussion concerning it, that 'transubstantiation' as that came into being among central feature of eucharistic doctrine, thus a central point of theological regard within the RCC, in what Edgar referred to as that doctrine's "modern form", was fairly far from being doctrine of the early Church universal;

Augustine, in particular, was, as has been shewn by Ragusa in the Council of Basil, the distinguished patron of this opinion. Our Lord, says this saint, "seems to command an atrocity. It is, therefore, a figure which is to be understood in a spiritual sense. He is spiritually eaten and drunk. Eat, not with your teeth, but with your heart. Believe, and you have eaten: for to believe and to eat are the same." This in numberless places is, adds Ragusa, "the explanation of Augustine, who, in language clearer than the sun or[at?] noon-day, explains the passage in John's Gospel to denote spiritual reception by faith."

The acceptation of the passage was also adopted by the Cardinal Bonaventure, Alliaco, Cusan, and Catejan. Bonaventure has already been quoted as a saint, and with him agrees Alliaco. The language, says Cusan, "is to be understood, not of visible or sacramental, but of spiritual manduaction by faith". Catejan, on this part of the holy writ, is, if possible, clearer, and stronger than Cusan. The Lord, says he, "speaks of faith." [end page 392]

Included in the chapter which I'm quoting from of this book, Edgar presents claim that even among those present at Council of Trent there was no real agreement as for many of the particulars of eucharistic doctrine, other than for (in one, or many senses) rather vague wording of the descriptions eventually adopted. Edgar provides sketch of details for the moderately wide variety opinions there expressed, and possibly coming from there soon afterwards. Once those are seen for what they are, contemplation as towards the fervently held by some belief, that it was Christ whom instituted RC Mass as it was in the 16th to 19th century, greatly diminishes.

"Presence"? Ok, Jose'. Corporeal presence? No way, get back, Jack and Loretta...

[Mad Dawg]

Wow! At least you tried the link! Sorry about the 404. Somewhere in the copy and paste process two URLs got smooshed together.

Here’s the URL, sans html:

www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm.

Your awesome post is going to have to wait until this PM for my inadequate answer. It’s not yet 0700 and Im already running late.

[BlueDragon]

beginning from bottom of page 398, from

The variations of Popery By Samuel Edgar 1838

These statements from Gelasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Facundus have sadly puzzled and perplexed the partisans of transubstantiation. The Testimony of Gelasius silenced Cardinal Cantaren in a disputation at Ratisbon. Cardinal Alan admits Gelasius's and Theodoret's rejection of a substantial change in the sacramental elements; but maintains that these two alone in their age embraced this heresy. Du Pin, having quoted Facundus, refers the reader to others for a resolution of the difficulty. Harduin, Alexander and Arnold, however, have attempted the arduaos task. ¹ The nature or substance, according to the authors, signifies, in this case the species or accidents, which remain unchanged in the sacramental elements. But Theodoret, in the above quotation, distinguishing the substance from the accidents, represents the sacramental elements, as retaining their former substance and species. The substance is here discriminated from the species or accidents; and all these, which he enumerates, remain in the mass without any transmutation.

-->The answer of these authors shews their their skill at transformations. The substance of the sacramental bread, in their hands, becomes, at pleasure, either accidents or the body of our Lord. These theologians could not only, as priests, transubstantiate the substance of the elements into flesh and blood, but also, as authors, when it served their purpose, into accidents or species. A few words from their mouths could convert the substance of the wine into blood, and a few strokes from their pens could metamorphose the same into accidents. These jugglers should have displayed their extraordinary powers, in transforming accidents into substance as well as substance into accidents; and they would then have the perfection of their art.<--

The ancients represent the bread and wine as conveying nourishment to the human body. Such are the statements of Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. The sacramental bread and wine, says Justin, "nourish our flesh and blood by digestion" . According to Irenaeus, "the consecrated elements increase our body." Tertullian represents "our flesh as feeding on his body and blood". Ludovicus lived entirely on the host for forty days; and Catharina subsisted on the same from Ash Wednesday till Ascension. The consecrated elements therefore are food for the body as well as for the soul; and in consequence preserve their substance. None surely will maintain the impiety, if not
[begin page 400]
blasphemy, that the flesh is, by digestion and nutrition formed of the flesh of Emmanuel.

Innocent the third resolved this difficulty by granting that something of the bread and wine remain in the sacrament, to allay hunger and thirst.¹ His infallibility, for once, was right, for which he was afterwards anathematized by the holy council of Trent. This infallibly assembly, in its thirteenth session, heartily cursed all who should say that the bread and wine remain with the Lord's body and blood, or should deny the transformation of the whole bread and wine. This denunciation was a retrospective dash at the vicar-general of God. Whether the imprecation sent his holiness to purgatory or to a worse place, the friends of transubstantiation and the papacy may determine.

-->Aquinas, Godeau, Du Pin, and Challenor endeavor to evade the difficulty by an extraordinary distinction and supposition. ² These distinguish the substance from the species; and with the former, which is not subject to corruption, would feed the soul; and with the latter, which some might think light provision, would sustain the body. The accidents, Aquinas and Godeau make no doubt, may, by an operation of the Almighty, produce the same effects as the substance and nourish the human frame. The angelic doctor confers on the host,"the efficacy of substance without the reality." Du Pin and Challoner entertain a similar idea. The learned divines, it seems, have discovered a method of fattening men on accidents, such as form, quality, taste, smell, colour, sign, and appearances. Signs without signification, shadow without substance, shew without any thing being shewn, colour without any thing coloured, smell without any thing smelled, present, it appears, an exquisite luxury, and form, according to these theological cooks, an excellent sustenance for the human constitution.<--

Challoner, however, doubtful of this theory, and suspicious of unsubstantial food, has, by a happy invention, provided a kind of supernatural meat, if his material diet should happen to be condemned for inefficiency. Some miraculous nourishment of a solid kind, he thinks, may be substituted by Omnipotence, when, by deglutition and digestion, "the sacramental species are changed" and the sacramental substance is removed. Aquinas, Du Pin, and Challoner, in this manner, rather
[end page 400]

than renounce a nonsensical system, condescend to talk balderdash. The credulity and blind zeal of Aquinas, Godeau, and Challoner indeed prepared these superstionists for the reception of any absurdity; the greater the absurdity the more acceptable to their taste, and better calculated for the meridian of their intellect. But more sense might have been expected from Du Pin, who, on other occasions, shews judgement and discrimination.

Many of the fathers, indeed, have been quoted in favour of transubstantiation. Some of these express themselves in strong language. A person unacquainted with the hyperbolical diction of ecclesiastical antiquity, and forms of speech used in these days, might be led to suppose that some of the fathers held a doctrine similar to modern transubstantiation. An opinion of this kind, however, must arise from indiscrimination in the reader, and from exaggeration of the author. The ancients, through want of precision, often confounded the sign with the signification. This confusion led them to exaggeration, and to ascribe to the sign what was true only of the signification; and this communion and exaggeration of antiquity have been augmented by the misrepresentation of the moderns, in their garbled and unfair citations.

Ignatius and Cyril supply a specimen of such confusion and misstatement. Ignatius, who so nobly faced the horrors of marrydom, has been characterized as the friend of transubstantiation. The matyr desired"the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus, and the drink, which is his blood"; and he mentioned some persons, who, in his day, denied the sacrament to be the flesh of the Saviour.

The apparent force of this quotation arises from its want of precision, and its separation from a parallel part of the author's work. Ignatius elsewhere calls "the gospel, and the faith that comes by the gospel, the flesh of Jesus, and love, his blood." ¹ A comparison of these two citations removes every difficulty. Cyril affords another specimen. According to this saint, "the Lord's own body is given under the emblem of the bread and his blood under the emblem of the wine. Consider them, therefore, not as mere bread and wine; for they are the body and blood of Emmanuel."

But the same author ascribes a similar change to the oil, used at that time in baptism. He represents "the oil of baptism after consecration, not as mere oil, but as the grace of Jesus, as the bread is not mere bread, but the body of our Lord." The argument, from these two words, is as conclusive for transubstantiation of the baptismal oil as for the eucharistical bread.

Cyril also represents the manuduction of the Son of Man, mentioned in John, in a spiritual sense which does not imply the eating of human flesh. This communion, he adds, "consists in receiving the emblems of our Lord's body."

Antiquity furnishes no stronger proofs of transubstantiation, than those of Ignatius and Cyril. But these two saints, when allowed to interpret themselves, disclaim the absurdity. The monster had not appeared in their day, All the monuments of Christian antiquity, in like manner, when rightly understood, concur in the rejection of this modern innovation. [ending here transcription, near top of page 402]

[BlueDragon]

Thank you for the kindly reply.

It's likely I've seen the Aquinas material previously, for if its central to the points and commonly cited, then after many years here, and further noodling around in the evil innards of the internet (reading intestine, looking for 'sign') I may have read it many times.

As for any awesome, that Edgar, though I not entirely agree with all he would say, could have a way of saying what he did.

Some of it should (still) leave a few dents ---- though not aimed at yourself, personally.

It does seem as if he covered the generalized grounds of the issue well (better still beyond that which I had transcribed) even as skimming from one aspect to another.

19th century Anglican divines can be 'different' to read, in their styles, but Edgar could pack in some wry zingers.

I particularly enjoyed his discussion of [Roman] Catholic theologian's postulation in regard to physical nutritional value of eucharist.

Although some portions are very much theological argument in and of themselves, and I do believe are worthy of serious consideration, his musing of musings of how from the "accidents" nutritional value could be found, to be quite delicious. I was lmao.

[dartuser]

Then nothing in the Old Testament can be a prelude to Christ since it was years before the incarnation.

You regretfully ignored the main point of my argument and took the snippet that focuses on the time. The point is that John does not mention the Lords Table in the Upper Room discourse.

Since the events were a year before the institution, John 6 COULD be what you say ...

But the simple fact that John omits the institution demands the conclusion that John 6 cannot be a foreshadowing of the events.

You as a RC will simply have to study the text more diligently to develop a cogent explanation.

[rwa265]

The flesh profits nothing. Agreed
It is the Spirit that gives life. Agreed
The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life. Agreed

The “words that I speak to you” also conveys an active sense. Jesus is referring to the words that He spoke to them in the synagogue at Capernaum. And in those words, Jesus says that He is the living bread that came down from heaven; that whoever eats this bread will live forever; and that the bread that He will give is His flesh for the life of the world.

So how can He give His flesh for the life of the world if the flesh profits nothing? It is the Spirit dwelling in Him that gives life to His flesh. It is this living bread come down from heaven that is His flesh for the life of the world.

Remember what Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3 when He spoke of the serpent:

12 If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13 No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

If we believe in the Son of Man, we accept what He tells us about heavenly things even if we don’t understand it.

The twelve probably didn’t understand. When Jesus asked them if they wanted to leave, Peter didn’t say that they understood or even believed what He was saying. They accepted His words as the words of eternal life and believed and were convinced that He was the Holy One of God.

I can understand your difficulty with these words. It is indeed a hard thing to say. Who can accept it? “Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.” Mark 10:15

[dartuser]

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet ...

But as I was serving the Lords Table this week (we celebrate every week and it was my turn to lead it) and I ate the bread (we use Matza) ... lol ... as I put the bread in my mouth and chewed it ... it tasted different than every other week. I then realized that I was chewing on a burnt piece of bread that got a little too baked.

As I was chewing that burnt piece it reminded me what the Jews were suppose to do with the lamb that could not be eaten during the Passover meal. They were to burn it up the next morning ... there was to be nothing left.

Exodus 12:10 - And you shall not leave any of it over until morning, but whatever is left of it until morning, you shall burn with fire.

So the Jews were to burn the remains of the Passover lamb with fire ... but RC position is to worship the remains of the Eucharist.

[Mad Dawg]

You will get no argument from me about how many Catholics don't know their stuff. As Rush says, thinking is hard, and lots of people would rather not do it.

I had kind of an interesting experience a few years ago: I'm a Lay Dominican, and I had envisioned a series of little talks: Veritas (the first motto of the O.P.), Veritas et Fides, Veritas et Venia.

We meet monthly, so the month before the second talk, I gave out a list of Articles of the Summa. On the day of the talk, a couple of comments during our chapter's breakfast and fellowship time, before the talk, made it painfully clear to me that most of my bubbas and sissies had never cracked open the Summa before.

They wanted to be Dominicans, most of them thought of themselves as smarter and more intellectually occupied than the average Catholic, but they had never tackled or even gotten on the field with the pre-eminent Dominican teacher!

I still made my Life Vows. (so you can call me “Mr. Mad Dawg, O.P.” woopie-doo.) But I realized how pathetic the state of learning was.

Another confusing thing, which may finally have to do with the limitations of language and the analogia entis, is that the vocabulary, rhetoric, and usages of what you might call “spiritual writing” are really different from those of theology.

But even when I'm inveigling the innocent to join the train of the whore of Babylon and kiss the Pope's toe, I find that the reality I'm trying to express is beyond anything I can say. So, I do two things. First, I set out red lines, e.g.: Nothing that I'm about to say should be understood that every single “work” of our salvation is God's. Not one is ours. “Surely, it is God who saves me,” sicut dixit Esaias.

Then, as suits my limitations, I present nearly everything as a metaphor and am explicit about that. For example, I make an extended comparison between Purgatory (which, people should know, Dante presents as a place of JOYFUL expectation) and Physical Therapy, in which I was happy to suffer because I was getting better and stronger all the time, and besides, it was a merry place.

And, when I can, I refer people to places where they can get rigorous expositions of what I have sketched in broad strokes and bright colors.
...

My favorite professor in my Episcopal seminary, back when Episcopalians still believed in God, said the problem of theology is that one has to say everything at once, and one can't. So almost every sentence can be justly criticized. That's why even Aquinas's writings spurred an inquisition.
...

Parting shots, suddenly my body is in revolt, my day is changing, and the recalcitrant flesh is demanding its fee:

— As I noted earlier, transubstantiation is far closer to “spiritual” than many Catholics are prepared to admit. The problem may be expressed by saying that the Spiritual is truly “real,” while the material is less so, since it passes away and, being susceptible to change — including changes that make it unfit for a prior substantial designation, has ‘less “being”’ than the material, so is less “real.”

— As to “immolation,” the problem is time and eternity and their relationship. Someone used either continuously or continually, I forget which, to refer to the idea of a repeated sacrifice. And yes, darn it, Catholic writers will carelessly say “again” just as they will assign a place to the Real Presence, which the Doctor says is NOT present as in a place. (At which point I need a drink, I'm just saying.)

But there is only one sacrifice, and it is all-sufficient. It cannot be multiplied in space or time. It is we who change in those respects. But God does not need to move to be everywhere, and THE sacrifice does not need to be repeated to be everywhen.

And, don't forget, that when backed to the wall, Aquinas says “sacramentally”, says sacrifices are signs, and says the Eucharist is not merely a sign.

We Do, after all, say it's a miracle.

[Mad Dawg]

But these are not arguments. (Mind you. I have asked people if they’d like to tell me what the substance of bread is.)

Those whose Eucharistic sustenance was not flat miraculous were nourished, the answer would be, by the accidents. The long chain polysaccharides are not what bread IS, but what it is made of.

So to me, this passage is about the rise of materialism in general thought.

Also there’s a popular notion that the Holy Spirit does not guide the Church, that it has been declining since the Apostolic Age. The development of dogma is observably a process of refinement. And, of course, we think the process to be guided by the Spirit, who is well able to contend with time.

[Mad Dawg]

As to Eucharistic apparitions, you may find this interesting:

www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article8

[FourtySeven]

This is an excellent post. I doubt a brief yet complete explanation of the dogma could be given better. It’s clear and concise.