Transubtantiation and Alchemy?

George · Sep 13, 2018

So I’ve heard the parallel of transubstantiation being aligned with alchemy?

MoreCoffee · Sep 13, 2018

George said:
So I’ve heard the parallel of transubstantiation being aligned with alchemy?

Only in the minds of people who believed in magic more than in the teaching of Christ. But some alchemists and some superstitious folk believed that the words spoken in the canon of the mass (in Latin) were some kind of magic incantation. HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM which became in the common mind "hocus-pocus" a magic incantation which was thought to transform one thing into another.

Josiah · Sep 13, 2018

George said:
So I’ve heard the parallel of transubstantiation being aligned with alchemy?

Medieval Roman Catholic "Scholasticism" was a movement to try to merge Christianity with pagan philosophy (including the "science" of that day, which was not science as we think of it but philosophy) - especially to "explain away" mystery. And they wanted to "verify" Christian teachings by showing that pagan philosophy supports it.

ONE of the many topics was the question of HOW Christ becomes present in the Eucharist and WHY the properties do not significantly increase (after all, the bread should be larger and heavier if it is Christ). How to explain all this VIA the pop, secular, pagan, pre-science ideas and philosophies of the day. All a quest of these RC "scholastics" who could not and would not "leave well enough alone" (as my Greek Orthodox friend puts it) and who rejected the idea of the Sacraments as MYSTERY and instead saw them as manifestations of pagan philosophy.

Those "Scholastics" came up with several theories - ALL originally condemned (even mocked). But one continued nonetheless - Transubstantiation. The word used for this in Latin does NOT simply mean "change" in some general sense. As I understand it, there are a few Latin words that do indicate some generic change (words at times used by ECF) but the word these Western RCC "Scholastics" used was a very rare technical word taken from alchemy (all the rage at the time), to mean the specific 'change' that happens as a result of alchemy. It's a specific change.

Alchemy was actually a very broad and diverse collection of WEIRD, wrong, pagan, pre-science ideas - more than the "let's turn lead into gold" that we all learned in Middle School science. But there was that key sense of a CHANGE that happens BECAUSE of alchemy, because certain "elements" as they were called (don't confuse that with the modern science definition) are manipulated by man - including by incantations (there is a certain "magic" in alchemy). The very rare, very technical word "Transubstantiation" refers to that.

These Western RCC "scholars" taught that's what happens at the Consecration... the priest has this POWER of magic, he says the magical words, and poof - TRANSUBSTANTIATION happens as a result. Magic replacing mystery.... priest (at least in part) replacing Christ as the one making this happen. Again, there had been ECF who spoke of a generic, mysterious, "change" (to what is present - the REAL PRESENCE view, and at times, ECF also meant to the "elements" themselves) but this was mysterious, divine, and very generic. But these Western Medieval RCC "Scholastics" went much further - nope, it's alchemy. This, they felt, actually gave it substantiation since all assumed alchemy to be true. Of course, eventually, alchemy was proven to be mostly false but by then the RCC had made it Dogma.

Of course, all this created a problem: In alchemy, Transubstantion changes what WE"D today call 'properties.' You can prove it is now GOLD because it has all the properties of gold and not of the original lead. By switching all this to alchemy, they gave the idea that Christ is present the "stamp of approval" of alchemy but also created a problem - it thus should look and taste like meat and blood (and some actually claimed it really does - faithlessness keeping us from sensing that). How to solve? Insert another pagan, secular bit of philosophy: Aristotles' absurd idea of "accidents" (the properties of reality can exist after the reality itself has ceased to exist) - the accidents of bread and wine are continuing AFTER the bread and wine have been alchemically converted. A bit like gold having all the properties of the lead it once was. This too was a very popular idea at the time (it was even used to explain ghosts and thunder) but it too was eventually proven to be false so today Catholics often try to redefine this very technical idea, too.

MY view: Believe what Jesus said and Paul penned. 'IS' 'BODY' 'BLOOD' 'BREAD' 'WINE' 'FORGIVENESS OF SINS." Believe and accept. Even though neither Jesus or Paul chose to give us the physics involved, they left it as a divine miracle. Don't dogmatically insist that Jesus and Paul misspoke and need modern science and philosophy to bail them out. Don't delete "is" and replace it with "changed in the very specific, technical sense of an alchemic 'Transubstantion' from bread and wine INTO body and blood leaving behind the Aristotelian Accidents of the bread and wine." Or "SYMBOLI(ZES" the body and blood of Christ but actually isn't." MY VIEW: Believe. Don't change it so that it "jibes" with the pop ideas of our day and seems verified by them. And don't disbelieve by insiting, "but that can't actually be so because my 7th Grade Science teacher said so." Or as my Greek Orthodox friend said, "leave well enough alone." Or as my Lutheran Dogmatics teacher said, "Our job is not to correct God but believe God."

.

Albion · Sep 14, 2018

MoreCoffee said:
Only in the minds of people who believed in magic more than in the teaching of Christ.

Yeh. that is essentially what we are describing--the Medieval Western Church.

It is unfortunate, to put it mildly, that the RCC has held fast to this ill-conceived doctrine even while it has adopted one after another of the reforms put forth by the Protestant Reformers. Why not also quietly ditch that one, Transubstantiation, in the way that the church redesigned Purgatory, re-defined the sacrifice of the Mass, changed the rules on Confession, Marriage and divorce, and so much else?

Josiah · Sep 14, 2018

Albion said:
Yeh. that is essentially what we are describing--the Medieval Western Church.

It is unfortunate, to put it mildly, that the RCC has held fast to this ill-conceived doctrine even while it has adopted one after another of the reforms put forth by the Protestant Reformers. Why not also quietly ditch that one, Transubstantiation, in the way that the church redesigned Purgatory, re-defined the sacrifice of the Mass, changed the rules on Confession, Marriage and divorce, and so much else?

I think it's probably UNLIKELY that the RCC would have ever made these two pagan, pre-science, WRONG ideas dogma in 1551 had it not been for the felt need to condemn Luther on virtually everything he said (including his passioate belief in Real Presence). "Transubstantiation" was first theorized some 500 years earlier - at first ridiculed but later commonly presented - but it was never anything official until it was suddenly made dogma at Trent. I think this was simply and only because Luther rejected it.

Luther found these two pagan theories to be baseless, untextual/abiblical, unnecessary and undermining the ancient, universal, biblical view of Real Presence. After all, if (as the RC denomination suddenly and dogmatically insisted) the word "is" doesn't mean that in any of the Eucharistic texts, and if (as the RC denomination suddenly and dogmatically insisted) what comes after the "is" isn't (fully), then there is zero textual/biblical reason to accept Real Presence. This silly dogmatization of two pagan ideas (later found to be WRONG) simply destroys any reason to accept Real Presence and essentially makes Zwingli's view just as valid. THAT'S why Luther rejected it. As the Anglican Church later also would do.

Again, MY view: Believe what Jesus said and Paul penned. 'IS' 'BODY' 'BLOOD' 'BREAD' 'WINE' 'FORGIVENESS OF SINS." Believe and accept. Even though neither Jesus or Paul chose to give us the physics involved, they left it as a divine miracle. Don't dogmatically insist that Jesus and Paul misspoke and need modern science and philosophy to bail them out. Don't delete "is" and replace it with "changed in the very specific, technical sense of an alchemic 'Transubstantion' from bread and wine INTO body and blood leaving behind the Aristotelian Accidents of the bread and wine." Or "SYMBOLIZES" the body and blood of Christ but actually isn't." MY VIEW: Believe. Don't change it so that it "jibes" with the pop ideas of our day and seems verified by them. And don't disbelieve by insisting, "but that can't actually be so because my 7th Grade Science teacher said so." Or as my Greek Orthodox friend said, "leave well enough alone." Or as my Lutheran Dogmatics teacher said, "Our job is not to correct God but believe God."

- Josiah

MoreCoffee · Sep 14, 2018

MoreCoffee said:
Only in the minds of people who believed in magic more than in the teaching of Christ. But some alchemists and some superstitious folk believed that the words spoken in the canon of the mass (in Latin) were some kind of magic incantation. HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM which became in the common mind "hocus-pocus" a magic incantation which was thought to transform one thing into another.

I think some information about dates may be helpful. The Canon of the Mass in the Roman rite is ancient. It was formalised some time between 190 AD and 382 AD. The best written evidence is from the later part of the 4th century (the 380s onwards) but there is less well documented evidence for the use of Latin in the Liturgy as early as 190 AD.

Josiah · Sep 14, 2018

Albion said:
It is unfortunate, to put it mildly, that the RCC has held fast to this ill-conceived doctrine even while it has adopted one after another of the reforms put forth by the Protestant Reformers. Why not also quietly ditch that one, Transubstantiation, in the way that the church redesigned Purgatory, re-defined the sacrifice of the Mass, changed the rules on Confession, Marriage and divorce, and so much else?

When I was growing up, my best friend, Marc, was the son of VERY Catholic parents. Both had gone to Catholic schools K-College (Law school in his dad's case). His mom was involved with the First Communion classes and both in the RCIA classes. The father told me that the Catholic Church COULD NOT admit error in official Catholic teaching without destroying its foundational position that it is authoritative and essentially infallible in such. So, he informed me, when error is noted, the Church simply redefines the words it officially declared, essentially saying, "But what we MEANT was....." It may, in fact, be a VERY different teaching but in redefining the words (rather than admitting error and replacing the teaching), a new teaching can be embraced while never admitting error. I think that's exactly what has happened with Transubstantiation. I don't know when or how this happened, but today Transubstantiation is not taught in the Catholic Church (to laity anyway). The LANGUAGE is still there (well, the very precise, technical, offical word "accident" has been quietly dropped, embarrassing as it is) but now "Transubstantiation" simply means "change" - as if the RCC had used one of the many Latin words meaning a generic, undefined change rather than a very technical word from alchemy). In my Catholic parish, the First Communion class presented a view that was a blend of the Greek Orthodox and Lutheran view - but using the word "Transubstantiation" (just stripped of any meaning, it's meaning changed to "a mysterious, undefined, generic change"). But it doesn't work. Not a bit. The RCC still denies the word "is" means is..... and still denies that what comes after the "is" is (necessarily, at least in any full or natural sense), it still makes Real Presence untenable. But don't hold your breath for the Catholic Church to official denounce the declaration at Trent and apologize for this false teaching - even though I think many Catholics realize that the 16th Century dogmatization of these two WRONG pagan philosophies is absurd and actually undermines Real Presence. As Marc's dad noted, it cannot without undermining something FAR more important to the RCC than Real Presence: it's unquestionable, unaccountable, dogmatic authority in official doctrine.

Interestingly, at our church is a couple who grew up VERY Mormon (both are actually related to LDS founders). They noted this is exactly what the LDS church also does, for EXACTLY THE SAME REASON. Old, embarrassing teachings are not dropped and apologized for - the words are simply redefined, sometimes to the exact opposite of what they mean, and then it's noted "THAT's what was MEANT all along."

MY opinion: On one level, the new, unique RCC dogma of Transubstantiation doesn't bother me much. For all it's silly and wrong physics, it STILL permits the full embrace of the Body and Blood of Christ... it still permits that CHRIST is present and CHRIST (and all His blessings) received. And that's the point. Yeah, there's a denial of the bread and wine after the Consecration that Paul mentions more after that than before, but I don't give a lot of importance to the bread and wine. I certainly find myself FAR more in agreement with the RCC than with "Evangelical" Zwinglians on THIS issue. "Transubstantiation" was not a "deal breaker" for me and not a reason for my leaving that denomination. But I agree with Luther: This view actually undermines (if not destroys) any biblical reason to accept Real Presence, to accept that Christ is present. After all, if "is" doesn't mean is.... if what comes after the "is" isn't necessarily.... then there's no reason (biblical, textual anyway) to believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are present. Zwingli suddenly becomes just a credible as any other view, just as good as the new, unique RCC Eucharistic dogma. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "The Roman Church just couldn't leave well enough alone." And, "The Roman Church can't seem to help messing things up."

- Josiah

MoreCoffee · Sep 14, 2018

Transubstantiation is said to be an "apt description" it is a word used to describe ideas that are part of a doctrine. The idea in the word is that there is a thing called "substance" and another different thing called "accidents". Both words are from Latin and the meaning goes back to Greek words used in the writings of Aristotle a Greek Philosopher of the fourth century before Christ (somewhere after 380 BC and before 320 BC) in both Greek and Latin the meaning of "substance" and "accidents" differs from the meaning of those words in modern English. The idea expressed by transubstantiation is that the bread and wine change sacramentally from ordinary bread made from wheat and water to the body and blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ. The same is said of the wine. The emphasis is on the body when the bread is considered and on the blood when the wine is considered but both bread and wine as thought to be the body and blood as well as the soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. This is a mystery - meaning something revealed by God that would not be known if God had not revealed it. The reason it would not be known is that the bread and wine continue to look, taste, small, and I imagine if tested by the most careful chemists and the most expert and careful physicists would still be bread and wine in exactly the same way that they were before they were sanctified for the Holy Eucharist.

This last observation, about the testing of the bread and wine by sight, taste, and composition according to physics and chemistry is what is meant by accidents. And the abstract idea, the essence of the idea of bread and wine is what is meant by substance. Of course what is meant in theology and in Aristotle's philosophy are not exactly the same, theology changes pagan philosophical notions by baptising them and filling them with revealed religion and divine truth and meaning. And what I have written is a very sketchy summary that ought to be taken as an approximation to be fleshed out by further reading. Nevertheless substance and accidents correspond roughly to the English meanings for words like essence (for substance) and properties (for accidents). Transubstantiation means "change from one substance (essence) to another different substance (essence)" regarding the holy Eucharist the bread and wine do not change appearances and properties the change is said to be in what they are in essence; specifically they become in essence the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord, Jesus Christ. Transubstantiation does not explain how this change is effected just that it is effected. The Lord is really, truly, and completely present in the host and the chalice contents (the wine). That is what is asserted in the doctrine for which the word transubstantiation was coined.

Frank J. Sheed Writes:

Besides the Real Presence which faith accepts and delights in, there is the doctrine of transubstantiation, from which we may at least get a glimpse of what happens when the priest consecrates bread and wine, so that they become Christ's body and Christ's blood.

At this stage, we must be content with only the simplest statement of the meaning of, and distinction between substance and accidents, without which we should make nothing at all of transubstantiation. We shall concentrate upon bread, reminding ourselves once again that what is said applies in principle to wine as well.

We look at the bread the priest uses in the Sacrament. It is white, round, soft. The whiteness is not the bread, it is simply a quality that the bread has; the same is true of the roundness and the softness. There is something there that has these and other properties, qualities, attributes- the philosophers call all of them accidents. Whiteness and roundness we see; softness brings in the sense of touch. We might smell bread, and the smell of new bread is wonderful, but once again the smell is not the bread, but simply a property. The something which has the whiteness, the softness, the roundness, has the smell; and if we try another sense, the sense of taste, the same something has that special effect upon our palate.

In other words, whatever the senses perceive-even with the aid of those instruments men are forever inventing to increase the reach of the senses- is always of this same sort, a quality, a property, an attribute; no sense perceives the something which has all these qualities, which is the thing itself. This something is what the philosophers call substance; the rest are accidents which it possesses. Our senses perceive accidents; only the mind knows the substance. This is true of bread, it is true of every created thing. Left to itself, the mind assumes that the substance is that which, in all its past experience, has been found to have that particular group of accidents. But in these two instances, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the mind is not left to itself. By the revelation of Christ it knows that the substance has been changed, in the one case into the substance of his body, in the other into the substance of his blood.

The senses can no more perceive the new substance resulting from the consecration than they could have perceived the substance there before. We cannot repeat too often that senses can perceive only accidents, and consecration changes only the substance. The accidents remain in their totality-for example, that which was wine and is now Christ's blood still has the smell of wine, the intoxicating power of wine. One is occasionally startled to find some scientist claiming to have put all the resources of his laboratory into testing the consecrated bread; he announces triumphantly that there is no change whatever, no difference between this and any other bread. We could have told him that, without the aid of any instrument. For all that instruments can do is to make contact with the accidents, and it is part of the doctrine of transubstantiation that the accidents undergo no change whatever. If our scientist had announced that he had found a change, that would be really startling and upsetting.

The accidents, then, remain; but not, of course, as accidents of Christ's body. It is not his body which has the whiteness and the roundness and the softness. The accidents once held in existence by the substance of bread, and those others once held in existence by the substance of wine, are now held in existence solely by God's will to maintain them.

What of Christ's body, now sacramentally present? We must leave the philosophy of this for a later stage in our study. All we shall say here is that his body is wholly present, though not (so St. Thomas among others tells us) extended in space. One further element in the doctrine of the Real Presence needs to be stated: Christ's body remains in the communicant as long as the accidents remain themselves. Where, in the normal action of our bodily processes, they are so changed as to be no longer accidents of bread or accidents of wine, the Real Presence in us of Christ's own individual body ceases. But we live on in his Mystical Body.

This very sketchy outline of the doctrine of transubstantiation is almost pathetic. But like so much in this book, what is here is only a beginning; you have the rest of life before you.

Albion · Sep 14, 2018

MoreCoffee said:
Transubstantiation is said to be an "apt description" it is a word used to describe ideas that are part of a doctrine. The idea in the word is that there is a thing called "substance" and another different thing called "accidents". Both words are from Latin and the meaning goes back to Greek words used in the writings of Aristotle a Greek Philosopher of the fourth century before Christ (somewhere after 380 BC and before 320 BC) in both Greek and Latin the meaning of "substance" and "accidents" differs from the meaning of those words in modern English.

The church's teaching about substance and accidents also differs markedly from what Aristotle said about them. I notice that you said he had used the words but not that the church, with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, turned both of them upside down.

MoreCoffee · Sep 14, 2018

Albion said:
The church's teaching about substance and accidents also differs markedly from what Aristotle said about them. I notice that you said he had used the words but not that the church, with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, turned both of them upside down.

The idea expressed by transubstantiation is that the bread and wine change sacramentally from ordinary bread made from wheat and water to the body and blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ. The same is said of the wine. The emphasis is on the body when the bread is considered and on the blood when the wine is considered but both bread and wine as thought to be the body and blood as well as the soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. This is a mystery - meaning something revealed by God that would not be known if God had not revealed it. The reason it would not be known is that the bread and wine continue to look, taste, small, and I imagine if tested by the most careful chemists and the most expert and careful physicists would still be bread and wine in exactly the same way that they were before they were sanctified for the Holy Eucharist. ... Of course what is meant in theology and in Aristotle's philosophy are not exactly the same, theology changes pagan philosophical notions by baptising them and filling them with revealed religion and divine truth and meaning. And what I have written is a very sketchy summary that ought to be taken as an approximation to be fleshed out by further reading. Nevertheless substance and accidents correspond roughly to the English meanings for words like essence (for substance) and properties (for accidents). Transubstantiation means "change from one substance (essence) to another different substance (essence)" regarding the holy Eucharist the bread and wine do not change appearances and properties the change is said to be in what they are in essence; specifically they become in essence the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord, Jesus Christ. Transubstantiation does not explain how this change is effected just that it is effected. The Lord is really, truly, and completely present in the host and the chalice contents (the wine). That is what is asserted in the doctrine for which the word transubstantiation was coined.

Albion · Sep 14, 2018

MoreCoffee said:
Of course what is meant in theology and in Aristotle's philosophy are not exactly the same, theology changes pagan philosophical notions by baptising them and filling them with revealed religion and divine truth and meaning.

I guess you could say that, but then why bother bringing Aristotle into the discussion or your explanation at all? The RCC doesn't believe about either substance or accidents what Aristotle taught about them..

MennoSota · Sep 14, 2018

Let's just admit that Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation are both hokum developed by pagans because they couldn't understand what the Bible says about being in Christ.
Since we, the elect, are placed into Christ when God makes us alive (see Ephesians 2:1-10) there is no need to eat his real flesh or drink his real blood as a means of renewing our grace. God has done it for us, once and for all.
We partake of the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Jesus atonement. No more...no less.

Albion · Sep 14, 2018

MennoSota said:
Let's just admit that Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation are both hokum developed by pagans because they couldn't understand what the Bible says about being in Christ.

Oh, let's not.

MennoSota · Sep 14, 2018

Albion said:
Oh, let's not.

I knew people wouldn't. You're all so steeped in alchemy you can't fathom differently. [emoji56][emoji41]

MoreCoffee · Sep 14, 2018

Albion said:
I guess you could say that, but then why bother bringing Aristotle into the discussion or your explanation at all?

Perhaps you're right. Aristotle's philosophy may not matter very much. The schoolmen referred to him but in the end he was not the source of their beliefs.

Albion · Sep 14, 2018

MoreCoffee said:
Perhaps you're right. Aristotle's philosophy may not matter very much. The schoolmen referred to him but in the end he was not the source of their beliefs.

In a way I agree with you there, but in another way I do not. Aristotle is important, but for this reason--he was so highly admired, lionized we might say, during the Middle Ages that when Transubstantiation came along, it was seen as a miracle BECAUSE IT INVERTED what Aristotle had taught.

Aristotle explained that the accidents of a object can change, but the substance does not. For example, an acorn becomes a tree but its substance is always Oak.

The mystical, miraculous, almost magical truth of the Eucharist, therefore, was that it did the opposite of what Aristotle had said! It--Transubstantiation--was what it was, almost as much because of Aristotle as because of Christ. At least so far as the understanding and appreciation of the faithful were concerned.

MoreCoffee · Sep 14, 2018

Albion said:
In a way I agree with you there, but in another way I do not. Aristotle is important, but for this reason--he was so highly admired, lionized we might say, during the Middle Ages that when Transubstantiation came along, it was seen as a miracle BECAUSE IT INVERTED what Aristotle had taught.

Aristotle explained that the accidents of a object can change, but the substance does not. For example, an acorn becomes a tree but its substance is always Oak.

The mystical, miraculous, almost magical truth of the Eucharist, therefore, was that it did the opposite of what Aristotle had said! It--Transubstantiation--was what it was, almost as much because of Aristotle as because of Christ. At least so far as the understanding and appreciation of the faithful were concerned.

You are likely right about that.

TurtleHare · Sep 16, 2018

MennoSota said:
Let's just admit that Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation are both hokum developed by pagans because they couldn't understand what the Bible says about being in Christ.
Since we, the elect, are placed into Christ when God makes us alive (see Ephesians 2:1-10) there is no need to eat his real flesh or drink his real blood as a means of renewing our grace. God has done it for us, once and for all.
We partake of the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Jesus atonement. No more...no less.

Who do you know who believes in consubstantion? Pleas don't day Lutherans cuz it ain't so.

MoreCoffee · Sep 16, 2018

TurtleHare said:
Who do you know who believes in consubstantion? Pleas don't day Lutherans cuz it ain't so.

What does consubstantiation mean?

What do Lutherans believe about the bread & wine and the body & blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in Lutheran communion celebration?

Josiah · Sep 16, 2018

MoreCoffee said:
What does consubstantiation mean?

What do Lutherans believe about the bread & wine and the body & blood of the Lord, Jesus Christ, in Lutheran communion celebration?

CONsubstantiation was one of the several Eucharistic theories invented by Western Medieval Roman Catholic "Scholastics", all of which were originally mocked but one of which (Transubstantiation) eventually became popular but when Luther rejected it, the RC denomination decided to dogmatize it (albeit a bit after Luther's death).

Lutherans hold to "Real Presence." It is the view that simply accepts what Jesus said and Paul penned. No denials, no deletions, no substitutions. IS = is. BODY = body. BLOOD = blood. FORGIVENESS = forgiveness. And "bread" and "wine" (mentioned more after the consecration than before) are not in any sense denied. All this is accepted by faith. All this is accepted as "mystery" rather than subjecting God to wrong, pagan, pre-science theories. Lutherans reject Catholic and Zwinglian efforts to deny what the texts state and to change it to something that "jibes" with what they think is actually possible for God and what fits with the pop (but wrong) physics concepts of the medieval world.

.

Transubtantiation and Alchemy?

Tis Theos Megas

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

simul justus et peccator