The holy supper of our Lord.

[MoreCoffee]

I wondered if any of you might be interested in reading a fairly short presentation on the Catholic view of the Lord's supper and its meaning. Below is a section taken from a book by James Cardinal Gibbons. It was written in the 1870s and he revised the book over the years from then until his death some time in the 1920s so this is material from 100 to 140 years ago yet it is relevant and at times amazingly clear. I hope you enjoy it.

The Holy Eucharist

Among the various dogmas of the Catholic Church there is none which rests on stronger Scriptural authority than the doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. So copious, indeed, and so clear are the passages of the New Testament which treat of this subject that I am at a loss to determine which to select, and find it difficult to compress them all within the compass of this short chapter.

The Evangelists do not always dwell upon the same mysteries of religion. Their practice is rather to supplement each other, so that one of them will mention what the others have omitted or have touched in a cursory way. But in regard to the Blessed Eucharist the sacred writers exhibit a marked deviation from this rule. We find that the four Evangelists, together with St. Paul, have written so explicitly and abundantly on this subject that one of them alone would be amply sufficient to prove the dogma without taking them collectively.

These five inspired writers gave the weight of their individual testimony to the doctrine of the Eucharist because they foresaw--or rather the Holy Ghost, speaking through them, foresaw--that this great mystery, which exacts so strong an exercise of our faith, and which bids us bow down our "understanding unto the obedience of Christ,"[II Cor. x. 5.] would meet with opposition in the course of time from those who would measure the infallible Word of God by the erring standard of their own judgment.

I shall select three classes of arguments from the New Testament which satisfactorily demonstrate the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. The first of these texts speaks of the promise of the Eucharist, the second of its institution and the third of its use among the faithful.

To begin with the words of the promise. While Jesus was once preaching near the coast of the Sea of Galilee He was followed, as usual, by an immense multitude of persons, who were attracted to Him by the miracles which He wrought and the words of salvation which he spoke. Seeing that the people had no food, He multiplied five loaves and two fishes to such an extent as to supply the wants of five thousand men, besides women and children.

Our Lord considered the present a favorable occasion for speaking of the Sacrament of His body and blood, which was to be distributed, not to a few thousand, but to millions of souls; not in one place, but everywhere; not at one time, but for all days, to the end of the world. "I am," He says to His hearers, "the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert and died. ... I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread which I will give is My flesh for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore, disputed among themselves, saying: How can this man give us His flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye shall not have life in you. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed."[John vi. 48-56.]

If these words had fallen on your ears for the first time, and if you had been among the number of our Savior's hearers on that occasion, would you not have been irresistibly led, by the noble simplicity of His words, to understand Him as speaking truly of His body and blood? For His language is not susceptible of any other interpretation.

When our Savior says to the Jews: "Your fathers did eat manna and died, ... but he that eateth his (Eucharistic) bread shall live forever," He evidently wishes to affirm the superiority of the food which He would give, over the manna by which the children of Israel were nourished.

Now, if the Eucharist were merely commemorative bread and wine, instead of being superior, it would be really inferior to the manna; for the manna was supernatural, heavenly, miraculous food, while bread and wine are a natural, earthly food.

But the best and the most reliable interpreters of our Savior's words are certainly the multitude and the disciples who are listening to Him. They all understood the import of His language precisely as it is explained by the Catholic Church. They believed that our Lord spoke literally of His body and blood. The Evangelist tells us that the Jews "disputed among themselves, saying: How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" Even his disciples, though avoiding the disrespectful language of the multitude, gave expression to their doubt in this milder form: "This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"[John vi. 61.] So much were they shocked at our Savior's promise that "after this many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him."[Ibid. vi. 67.] They evidently implied, by their words and conduct, that they understood Jesus to have spoken literally of His flesh; for, had they interpreted His words in a figurative sense, it would not have been a hard saying, nor have led them to abandon their Master.

But, perhaps, I shall be told that the disciples and the Jews who heard our Savior may have misinterpreted His meaning by taking His words in the literal acceptation, while He may have spoken in a figurative sense. This objection is easily disposed of. It sometimes happened, indeed, that our Savior was misunderstood by His hearers. On such occasions He always took care to remove from their mind the wrong impression they had formed by stating His meaning in simpler language. Thus, for instance, having told Nicodemus that unless a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, and having observed that His meaning was not correctly apprehended by this disciple our Savior added: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."[John iii.] And again, when he warned His disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees, and finding that they had taken an erroneous meaning from His word, He immediately subjoined that they should beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees.[Matt. xvi.]

But in the present instance does our Savior alter His language when He finds His words taken in the literal sense? Does He tell His hearers that He has spoken figuratively? Does He soften the tone of His expression? Far from weakening the force of His words He repeats what He said before, and in language more emphatic: "Amen, amen, I say to you, Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall not have life in you."
When our Savior beheld the Jews and many of His disciples abandoning Him, turning to the chosen twelve, He said feelingly to them: "Will ye also go away? And Simon Peter answered Him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."[John vi. 68, 69.] You, my dear reader, must also take your choice. Will you reply with the Jews, or with the disciples of little faith, or with Peter? Ah! let some say with the unbelieving Jews: "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" Let others say with the unfaithful disciples: "This is a hard saying. Who can hear it?" But do you say with Peter: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."

So far I have dwelt on the words of the Promise. I shall now proceed to the words of the Institution, which are given in almost the same expressions by St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke. In the Gospel according to St. Matthew we read the following narrative: "And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke and gave to His disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is My body. And taking the chalice, He gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this; for this is My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."[Matt. xxvi. 26-28.]

I beg you to recall to mind the former text relative to the Promise and to compare it with this. How admirably they fit together, like to links in a chain! How faithfully has Jesus fulfilled the Promise which He made! Could any idea be expressed in clearer terms than these: This is My body; this is My blood?

Why is the Catholic interpretation of these words rejected by Protestants? Is it because the text is in itself obscure and ambiguous? By no means; but simply because they do not comprehend how God could perform so stupendous a miracle as to give His body and blood for our spiritual nourishment.

Is, then, the power or the mercy of God to be measured by the narrow rule of the human understanding? Is the Almighty not permitted to do anything except what we can sanction by our reason? Is a thing to be declared impossible because we cannot see its possibility?

Continued in the next post ...

 

[MoreCoffee]

Continuation ...

You tell me it is a mystery above your comprehension. A mystery, indeed. A religion that rejects a revealed truth because it is incomprehensible contains in itself the seeds of dissolution and will end in rationalism. It not everything around us a mystery. Are we not a mystery to ourselves? Explain to me how the blood circulates in your veins, how the soul animates and permeates the whole body, how the hand moves at the will of the soul. Explain to me the mystery of life and death.

Is not the Scripture full of incomprehensible mysteries? Do you not believe in the Trinity--a mystery not only above, but apparently contrary to, reason? Do you not admit the Incarnation--that the helpless infant in Bethlehem was God? I understand why Rationalists, who admit nothing above their reason, reject the Real Presence; but that Bible Christians should reject it is to me incomprehensible.

But do those who reject the Catholic interpretation explain this text to their own satisfaction: "This is My body, etc.?" Alas! here their burden begins. Only a few years after the early Reformers had rejected the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist no fewer than one hundred meanings were given to these words: "This is My body." It is far easier to destroy than to rebuild.

Let me now offer you some additional reasons in favor of the Catholic or literal sense. According to a common rule observed in the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, we must always take the words in their literal signification, unless we have some special reason which obliges us to accept them in a figurative meaning. Now, in the present instance, far from being forced to employ the words above quoted in a figurative sense, every circumstance connected with the delivery of them obliges us to interpret them in their plain and literal acceptation.

To whom did our Savior address these words? At what time and under what circumstances did He speak? He was addressing His few chosen disciples, to whom He promised to speak in future, not in parables nor in obscure language, but in the words of simple truth. He uttered these words the night before His Passion. And when will a person use plainer speech than at the point of death?

These words: "This is My body; this is My blood," embodied a new dogma of faith which all were obliged to believe, and a new law which all were obliged to practice. They were the last will and testament of our blessed Savior. What language should be plainer than that which contains an article of faith? What words should be more free from tropes and figures than those which enforce a Divine law? But, above all, where will you find any words more plain and unvarnished than those contained in a last will?

Now, if we understand these words in their plain and obvious; that is, in their Catholic, sense, no language can be more simple and intelligible. But if we depart from the Catholic interpretation, then it is impossible to attach to them any reasonable meaning.

We now arrive at the third class of Scripture texts which have reference to the use or reception of the Sacrament among the faithful.

When Jesus, as you remember, instituted the Eucharist at His last Supper He commanded His disciples and their successors to renew, till the end of time, in remembrance of Him, the ceremony which He performed. What I have done, do ye also "for a commemoration of Me."[Luke xxii. 19.]

We have a very satisfactory means of ascertaining the Apostolic belief in the doctrine of the Eucharist by examining what the Apostles did in commemoration of our Lord. Did they bless and distribute mere bread and wine to the faithful, or did they consecrate, as they believed, the body and blood of Jesus Christ? If they professed to give only bread and wine in memory of our Lord's Supper, then the Catholic interpretation falls to the ground. If, on the contrary, we find the Apostles and their successors, from the first to the nineteenth century, professing to consecrate and dispense the body and blood of Christ, and doing so by virtue of the command of their Savior, then the Catholic interpretation alone is admissible.

Let St. Paul be our first witness. Represent yourself as a member of the primitive Christian congregation assembled in Corinth. About eighteen years after St. Matthew wrote his Gospel, a letter is read from the Apostle Paul, in which the following words occur: "The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? ... For, I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, brake it, and said: Take and eat: this is My body which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice, after the supper, saying: This cup is the New Covenant in My blood. This do ye, as often as ye shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For, as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye shall show the death of the Lord until He come. Therefore, whoever 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. But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For, he who eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."[I Cor. x. 16, and xi. 23-29.]

Could St. Paul express more clearly his belief in the Real Presence than he has done here? The Apostle distinctly affirms that the chalice and bread which he and his fellow Apostles bless is a participation of the body and blood of Christ. And surely no one could be said to partake of that divine food by eating ordinary bread. Mark these words of the Apostle: Whosoever shall take the Sacrament unworthily "shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." What a heinous crime! For these words signify that he who receives the Sacrament unworthily shall be guilty of the sin of high treason, and of shedding the blood of his Lord in vain. But how could he be guilty of a crime so enormous, if he had taken in the Eucharist only a particle of bread and wine. Would a man be accused of homicide, in this commonwealth, if he were to offer violence to the statue or painting of the governor? Certainly not. In like manner, St. Paul would not be so unreasonable as to declare a man guilty of trampling on the blood of his Savior by drinking in an unworthy manner a little wine in memory of Him.

Study also these words: "He who eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." The unworthy receiver is condemned for not recognizing or discerning in the Eucharist the body of the Lord. How could he be blamed for not discerning the body of the Lord, if there were only bread and wine before him? Hence, if the words of St. Paul are figuratively understood, they are distorted, forced and exaggerated terms, without meaning or truth. But, if they are taken literally, they are full of sense and of awful significance, and an eloquent commentary on the words I have quoted from the Evangelist.

Continued ...

 

[MoreCoffee]

​Continuation

The Fathers of the Church, without an exception, re-echo the language of the Apostle of the Gentiles by proclaiming the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. I have counted the names of sixty-three Fathers and eminent Ecclesiastical writers flourishing between the first and sixth century all of whom proclaim the Real Presence--some by explaining the mystery, others by thanking God for his inestimable gift, and others by exhorting the faithful to its worthy reception. From such a host of witnesses I can select here only a few at random.

St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. Peter, speaking of a sect called Gnostics, says: "They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they confess not that the Eucharist and prayer is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ."

St. Justin Martyr, in an apology to the Emperor Antoninus, writes in the second century: "We do not receive these things as common bread and drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior was made flesh by the word of God, even so we have been taught that the Eucharist is both the flesh and the blood of the same incarnate Jesus."

Origen (third century) writes: "If thou wilt go up with Christ to celebrate the Passover, He will give to thee that bread of benediction, His own body, and will vouchsafe to thee His own blood."

St. Cyril, of Jerusalem (fourth century), instructing the Catechumens, observes: "He Himself having declared, This is My body, who shall dare to doubt henceforward? And He having said, This is My blood, who shall ever doubt, saying: This is not His blood? He once at Cana turned water into wine, which is akin to blood; and is He undeserving of belief when He turned wine into blood?" He seems to be arguing with modern unbelief.

St. John Chrysostom, who died in the beginning of the fifth century, preaching on the Eucharist, says: "If thou wert indeed incorporeal, He would have delivered to thee those same incorporeal gifts without covering. But since the soul is united to the body, He delivers to thee in things perceptible to the senses the things to be apprehended by the understanding. How many nowadays say: 'Would that they could look upon His (Jesus') form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes. Lo! thou seest Him, touchest Him, eatest Him.'"

St. Augustine (fifth century), addressing the newly-baptized, says: "I promised you a discourse wherein I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's table, which sacrament you even now behold, and of which you were last night made partakers. You ought to know what you have received. The bread which you see on the altar, after being sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, after being sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ."[See "Faith of Catholics."]

But why multiply authorities? At the present day every Christian communion throughout the world, with the sole exception of Protestants, proclaim its belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

The Nestorians and Eutychians, who separated from the Catholic Church in the fifth century, admit the corporeal presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. Such also is the faith of the Greek church, which seceded from us a thousand years ago, of the Present Russian church, of the schismatic Copts, the Syrians, Chaldeans, Armenians, and, in short, of all the Oriental sects no longer in communion with the See of Rome.

Has not God, created the heavens and the earth out of nothing by the fiat of His word? What a mystery is this! Does He not hold this world in the midst of space? Does He not transform the tiny blade into nutritious grain? Did He not feed upwards of five thousand persons with five loaves and two fishes? What a mystery! Did He not rain down manna from heaven for forty years to feed the children of Israel in the desert? Did He not change rivers into blood in Egypt, and water into wine at the wedding of Cana? Does he not daily make devout souls the tabernacles of the Holy Ghost? And shall we have the hardihood to deny, in spite of our Lord's plain declaration, that God, who works these wonders, is able to change bread and wine into His body and blood for the food of our souls?

 

[Josiah]

Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I will you, I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine again until I drink it with you in my father's kingdom." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."



There are three major "schools" on these in the West...


Real Presence: This view accepts these verses "as is" - with nothing added, deleted or substituted, and with no pagan philosophies or rejected prescience theories imposed or dogmatiozed. "Is" = is, every time (Real, present, exists). "Body" = body, every time. "Blood" = blood, every time. That's it. That's all. Body and blood IS... ARE..... thus present, real, there and thus received. While Real Presence technically doesn't mention the bread and wine or deal with that, it doesn't IN ANY SENSE deny such "exists" either - it's just insignificant. This view simply accepts all the words - as is, with no attempt to change some or ignore some or to impose some scientific concept or to "explain" away anything. It understands all this as "MYSTERY." It says only what Jesus and Paul says; questions are welcomed just left unanswered (dogmatically, anyway). THAT it is true is fully embraced; HOW it is true is left alone. This view is currently embraced by Lutherans, as well as some Anglicans and Methodist.


Transubstantiation: First expressed in 1134, first officially mentioned in 1214 and made dogma exclusively in the individual RC Denomination in 1551, it holds that the word "is" should be replaced by the words "CHANGED and/or CONVERTED and/or TRANSFORMED from one reality to a completely foreign different reality." It then holds that this CHANGE happens via an alchemic transubstantiation (from which comes the name the RCC gave for this view). This, however, causes a problem with the texts which mentions bread and wine AFTER the Consecration (in First Corinthians, MORE than before) in EXACTLY the same way as such is mentioned BEFORE the Consecration. This view thus replaces those words, too. Instead, this view holds that "bread" and "wine" be replaced with, an Aristotelian ACCIDENT or appearance or species of bread and wine but not really bread and wine at all - just the 'empty shell' of what is left over after the alchemic transubstantiation CHANGE. It denies that bread and wine are present in any full, literal, real sense (in spite of what the Bible says). Two pagan ideas are imposed: Transubstantiation and Accidents. Several words are deleted: "Is" "bread" and "wine" (the later two only after the Consecration). This view is the official Eucharistic dogma of the Roman Catholic Church since 1551. No other church holds to it.


Figurative/Symbolic/Memorial Presence: This view holds that the word "is" indicates a figure of speech and that there is a metaphor here. It insists and the bread and wine are here made SYMBOLS or FIGURES or memorials of His Body and Blood. Christ is not "present" at all (in any sense other than He always is present), but the bread and wine are now symbols of Christ and His sacrifice. It is often compared to the Old Covenant Passover Meal - a memorial to REMIND us of things. The terms "body" and "blood" so stressed by Jesus and Paul are simply stripped of their USUAL meaning and said to be "symbols" or "figures" or "memorials" of them. "Is" doesn't mean "is" but "a figure of." This view is typically associated with Zwingli. This view is now popular among modern American "Evangelicals" and frequently among modern Reformed/Calvinists. While NOT the RCC dogma, it's quite common among Catholics, too.



One might summerize the 3 common views this way:

LUTHERANS: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed, all are accepted "as is." It's mystery.

ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic Transubstatiation.

EVANGELICALS: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor.




It should be noted that many would speak of 2 other views, neither common in the West. The EOC has a view somewhat between the Catholic and Lutheran views; it embraces that there is some change in the elements (not just in what is present) BUT rejects Transubstantiation because it leaves the nature and means and character of the change entirely and completely to MYSTERY and insists that this 'change' is unimportant (rather than dogma), their emphasis (like Lutherans) is entirely on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood. Calvin's view is difficult to understand, and Reformed have developed it different; it flows from his essential rejection of Chalcadon and his insistence on separating the Two Natures of Christ. But today, his view has almost entirely been forgotten; nearly all Reformed are Zwinglian on this and agree with modern Evangelicals.





- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

The original post deals with Catholic teaching about the real presence. I don't see any value in a Lutheran reinterpretation being imposed as some kind of filter on what a Catholic Cardinal had to say. The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers a clear and concise explanation of what Catholics teach and believe on the matter of Transubstantiation. Here is what it says.

The presence of Christ by the power of his word and the Holy Spirit


1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church:[SUP]195 [/SUP]in his word, in his Church's prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"[SUP]196 [/SUP]in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,[SUP]197 [/SUP]in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."[SUP]198[/SUP]


1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."[SUP]199 [/SUP]In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."[SUP]200 [/SUP]"This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."[SUP]201[/SUP]


1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. the priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.[SUP]202[/SUP]​

and St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. the power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed.... Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.[SUP]203[/SUP]​

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."[SUP]204[/SUP]

​

Continues ...

 

[MoreCoffee]

Continued

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.[SUP]205[/SUP]


1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."[SUP]206[/SUP]


1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.


1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the end,"[SUP]207 [/SUP]even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us,[SUP]208 [/SUP]and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love:


The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration never cease.[SUP]209[/SUP]


1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"[SUP]210[/SUP]

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore​

Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,​

See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart​

Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.​

​

Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;​

How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;​

What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;​

Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.[SUP]211[/SUP]​

195 ⇒ Rom 8:34; cf. LG 48.
196 ⇒ Mt 18:20.
197 Cf. ⇒ Mt 25:31-46.
198 SC 7.
199 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 73, 3c.
200 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651.
201 Paul VI, MF 39.
202 St. John Chrysostom, prod. Jud. 1:6: PG 49, 380.
203 St. Ambrose, De myst. 9, 50; 52: PL 16, 405-407.
204 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1642; cf. ⇒ Mt 26:26 ff.; ⇒ Mk 14:22 ff.; ⇒ Lk 22:19 ff.; ⇒ 1 Cor 11:24 ff.
205 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.
206 Paul VI, MF 56.
207 ⇒ Jn 13:1.
208 Cf. ⇒ Gal 2:20.
209 John Paul II, Dominicae cenae, 3.
210 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 75, 1; cf. Paul VI, MF 18; St. Cyril of
Alexandria, In Luc. 22, 19: PG 72, 912; cf. Paul VI, MF 18.
211 St. Thomas Aquinas (attr.), Adoro te devote; tr. Gerard Manley
Hopkins.

 

[Josiah]

The new, unique Eucharistic Dogma of the RC Denomination is Transubstantiation/Accidents. If you wish to defend the RCC position, then that would be what you'd need to defend.

 

[hedrick]

The Lutheran interpretation of Christ's words seems the most literal. The bread and wine are Christ's body and blood. The Catholic interpretation says that the bread and wine have to vanish for the body and blood to become present. In my view the most controversial part of transubstantiation isn't the real presence, but the absence of the bread and wine. Whether he actually meant it literally is a matter of judgement. There are plenty of other statements in the NT that are metaphor.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So you both read the first, second, and third posts?

 

[hedrick]

So you both read the first, second, and third posts?

Yes. The first three posting describe the literal reading, that the bread and wine are Christ's body and blood. This is the Lutheran position. The postings from the CCC describe the Catholic reading, that the bread and wine are replaced by the body and blood.

If you say to me that the bread and wine have to disappear, because something can't be bread and Christ's body at the same time, I am going to suggest to you that this is the same kind of assumption that says the sane thing can't be a human being and God at the same time.

I don't personally think Jesus was speaking literally. But if you're going to be literal, be literal. Don't turn "is" into "is replaced by."

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes. The first three posting describe the literal reading, that the bread and wine are Christ's body and blood. This is the Lutheran position. The postings from the CCC describe the Catholic reading, that the bread and wine are replaced by the body and blood.

If you say to me that the bread and wine have to disappear, because something can't be bread and Christ's body at the same time, I am going to suggest to you that this is the same kind of assumption that says the sane thing can't be a human being and God at the same time.

I don't personally think Jesus was speaking literally. But if you're going to be literal, be literal. Don't turn "is" into "is replaced by."

The first three posts are from the pen of James Cardinal Gibbons, a Cardinal in the Catholic Church in the USA, his stated views are in full compliance with the teaching of the Catholic Church in his time and now and in the time of the council of Trent.

 

[Josiah]

The Lutheran interpretation of Christ's words seems the most literal. The bread and wine are Christ's body and blood. The Catholic interpretation says that the bread and wine have to vanish for the body and blood to become present. In my view the most controversial part of transubstantiation isn't the real presence, but the absence of the bread and wine. Whether he actually meant it literally is a matter of judgement. There are plenty of other statements in the NT that are metaphor.

Dangers of Transubstantiation:


1. While it MAY be that those medieval, western, Roman Catholic "scholastics" that invented the new, unique Eucharistic Dogma of Transubstantiation/Accidents only intended to present ONE POSSIBLE way that secular theories could be used to explain away the MYSTERY of Real Presence..... it actually made Real Presence untenable.

2. While it MAY be that the singular, individual RC Denomination made these pagan theories into Dogma in 1551 to PROTECT Real Presence (from whom?), it actually destroyed any reason to accept, embrace and believe Real Presence.

After all, Real Presence demands, requires, mandates that "IS" means is (present, real, exists, "there") so as the RCC deleted that word and replaced it with foreign, different words (Changed via the precise, technical mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation) it destroyed any reason to believe that anything actually IS.... REAL..... PRESENT..... THERE.... the word all depends on was deleted and another substituted. And Real Presence demands, requires, mandates that what follows the "IS".... well, is. And if what follows the "IS" well.... isn't (they are just ACCIDENTS, SEEMING to carnal senses), if the bread and wine aren't.... then what textual reason is there to believe the body and blood are? Transubstantiation/Accidents destroys any textual reason to accept Real Presence.


Yes, I think the new RCC and the common "Evangelical" view are essentially the same (just applied in the opposite way).... both demand that Jesus and Paul did not mean what they said/penned... that "is" doesn't mean is, and that HALF of what follows the "IS" well, isn't (fully, anyway): both destroy Real Presence.



Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[onlyme]

In the context, 'is' = represents, symbolically. This has always been my understanding.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Transubstantiation is not a dogma.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In the context, 'is' = represents, symbolically. This has always been my understanding.

So what you've written is your view?

That would mean, when applying the meaning to 'is' that your post gave, that what you've written represents symbolically your opinion.

I wonder how long one could sustain that kind of meaning for the word 'is' in normal spoken or written English without reducing the language to nonsense.

 

[onlyme]

So what you've written is your view?

That would mean, when applying the meaning to 'is' that your post gave, that what you've written represents symbolically your opinion.

I wonder how long one could sustain that kind of meaning for the word 'is' in normal spoken or written English without reducing the language to nonsense.

You can use words like nonsense if you like, if you don't agree.

But my passport photo is a representation of me. I can say 'This is me', and the meaning that the photo image represents me, is clear. Remember, so many Bible believers hold, and have held for centuries, that the Lord's Supper is a representational memorial. 'This do in remembrance of Me.' (1 Corinthians 11).

 

[Josiah]

Remember, so many Bible believers hold, and have held for centuries, that the Lord's Supper is a representational memorial. 'This do in remembrance of Me.' (1 Corinthians 11).

But until Zwingli in the late 16th Century, they embraced that the Eucharist is far, far MORE than JUST and ONLY that..... it is Christ, it is His body and His blood. Just as Jesus said. Just as the Holy Spirit caused Paul to pen. They did NOT say it's a MEMORIAL, they said to DO THIS in memory (big difference).

What is stated is: IS.... BODY..... BLOOD..... BREAD..... WINE...... FORGIVENESS. Nothin' there about "part is, part isn't." Nothin' there about "symbolizes." Nothin' there about "changed to/from." Nothin' there about "alchemic Transubstantiation." Nothin' there about "but it's NOT." Jesus said..... Paul penned: IS...... BODY..... BLOOD...... BREAD..... WINE...... FORGIVENESS.

The idea that Jesus didn't mean what He said.... that Paul didn't mean as the Holy Spirit inspired him to pen..... no, that is not what Christians for centuries believed, it is a medieval idea - made dogma in the 16th Century by the RCC and by Zwingli.



- Josiah

 

[onlyme]

But until Zwingli in the late 16th Century, they embraced that the Eucharist is far, far MORE than JUST and ONLY that..... it is Christ, it is His body and His blood. Just as Jesus said. Just as the Holy Spirit caused Paul to pen. They did NOT say it's a MEMORIAL, they said to DO THIS in memory (big difference).

What is stated is: IS.... BODY..... BLOOD..... BREAD..... WINE...... FORGIVENESS. Nothin' there about "part is, part isn't." Nothin' there about "symbolizes." Nothin' there about "changed to/from." Nothin' there about "alchemic Transubstantiation." Nothin' there about "but it's NOT." Jesus said..... Paul penned: IS...... BODY..... BLOOD...... BREAD..... WINE...... FORGIVENESS.

The idea that Jesus didn't mean what He said.... that Paul didn't mean as the Holy Spirit inspired him to pen..... no, that is not what Christians for centuries believed, it is a medieval idea - made dogma in the 16th Century by the RCC and by Zwingli.



- Josiah

I don't understand your argument; if 1 Cor. 11 says that it is a remembrance, and it does, are you really arguing that Zwingli should have denied it or added to the sense?

 

[Josiah]

I don't understand your argument

The words are IS.... BODY...... BLOOD...... BREAD...... WINE...... FORGIVENESS. To me, it seems good to accept and believe those words. IS = is (real, present, real, exists, there), BODY = body, BLOOD = blood. BREAD = bread. WINE/CUP/FRUIT OF THE VINE = wine. FORGIVNESS = forgiveness. Accepting what Jesus said, what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write. Nothing doubted. Nothing deleted. Nothing dismissed. Nothing added. Nothing substituted.

if 1 Cor. 11 says that it is a remembrance, and it does

Actually, it does NOT. It says "do THIS in rememberance" The THIS refers to a reality. If I stand up with a judge enters a courtroom, that doesn't negate the reality of the judge, it simply means I'm respecting him.

are you really arguing that Zwingli should have denied it or added to the sense?

Zwingli copied the RCC, who in the middle ages, deleted the word "is" (and substituted other words in lieu of, in place of, in stead of that), then effectively got rid of half of what follows the "is" - all because what is said just can't be true. Zwingli followed suit, also deleting the word "is" and replacing it with a different word he felt was more credible, but then also effectively got rid of half of what follows the "is." The "debate" we see (especially in modern American Christianity) between post 16th Century Catholics and post 16th Century Zwinglian "Evangelicals" is NOT whether to believe and accept what Jesus said and Paul penned (as Christians did for many, many, many centuries but which neither modern Catholics or "Evangelicals" do) but what word(s) to substitute for "is" and what two things to effectively eliminate after the "is." Frankly, I have no problem doing as Cahristians did for many, many, many centuries: just believe and accept what Jesus said and Paul penned: IS.... BODY...... BLOOD...... BREAD...... WINE...... FORGIVENESS. Letting it "stand" as the Holy Spirit caused it, letting God have the "last word." Leaving the "how" and "when" and "physics" to MYSTERY since faith is a matter of believing, not doubting, faith is a matter of trusting, not correcting God so that He makes sense to self. it's true because God said it, not because it seems credible to self and can be explained by whatever pop philosophy or "science" we happen to embrace at this moment.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[onlyme]

The words are IS.... BODY...... BLOOD...... BREAD...... WINE...... FORGIVENESS. To me, it seems good to accept and believe those words. IS = is (real, present, real, exists, there), BODY = body, BLOOD = blood. BREAD = bread. WINE/CUP/FRUIT OF THE VINE = wine. FORGIVNESS = forgiveness. Accepting what Jesus said, what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write. Nothing doubted. Nothing deleted. Nothing dismissed. Nothing added. Nothing substituted.





Actually, it does NOT. It says "do THIS in rememberance" The THIS refers to a reality. If I stand up with a judge enters a courtroom, that doesn't negate the reality of the judge, it simply means I'm respecting him.





Zwingli copied the RCC, who in the middle ages, deleted the word "is" (and substituted other words in lieu of, in place of, in stead of that), then effectively got rid of half of what follows the "is" - all because what is said just can't be true. Zwingli followed suit, also deleting the word "is" and replacing it with a different word he felt was more credible, but then also effectively got rid of half of what follows the "is." The "debate" we see (especially in modern American Christianity) between post 16th Century Catholics and post 16th Century Zwinglian "Evangelicals" is NOT whether to believe and accept what Jesus said and Paul penned (as Christians did for many, many, many centuries but which neither modern Catholics or "Evangelicals" do) but what word(s) to substitute for "is" and what two things to effectively eliminate after the "is." Frankly, I have no problem doing as Cahristians did for many, many, many centuries: just believe and accept what Jesus said and Paul penned: IS.... BODY...... BLOOD...... BREAD...... WINE...... FORGIVENESS. Letting it "stand" as the Holy Spirit caused it, letting God have the "last word." Leaving the "how" and "when" and "physics" to MYSTERY since faith is a matter of believing, not doubting, faith is a matter of trusting, not correcting God so that He makes sense to self. it's true because God said it, not because it seems credible to self and can be explained by whatever pop philosophy or "science" we happen to embrace at this moment.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

Passport official (holding photo page): Is this you?

Me: Yes.