Transubstantiation And The Early Church

[linate]

another article...

 

"The inner life of God, according to John Paul, is self-giving love: The Father pours himself out in Gift to the Son, the Son pours himself out in Gift to the Father, and the Holy Spirit bursts forth as the fruit of their selfgiving love."

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The real and perpetual presence of christ are present in the holy eucharist. Both natural and supernatural. Both figurative and literal. Seen and unseen. :)

[reyb]

You will never stop wandering cyclically whether this body and blood mentioned in the scripture  (1 Cor 11:25, Luke 22:19, Mark 14:22-24) should be taken literally or figuratively because these words are not ‘words out of human wisdom and talent’ written in that kind of form. 

 

Nobody can write a spiritual word in figurative or literal manner in the same way they write ‘words out of human wisdom’ because of the nature of truth they bring.  Spiritual word bring spiritual truth and you will never find spiritual truth in any other kind of word,  whether written in figurative or literal form because spiritual words are taught and made known only by the spirit of God while any other kind of words are words used in conveying a message out human wisdom and talent. 

 

Let us take for example the word ‘Bread’. We all know what is ‘Bread’ in our table since it is a kind of food made of flour and water and baked in oven. But ‘Bread from heaven’ (see John 6:35ff) is a ‘spiritual bread’ and therefore, it should not be ‘a kind of bread made of flour and water and baked in oven’. Othewise, it is not a spiritual word anymore. .

 

Now, since you are not truly aware what is that ‘spiritual bread’ in the scripture,  you are now looking at the Eucharist  as the ‘spiritual bread’. I know you are honestly believe in your heart  that this Eucharist is Christ himself. But I must reminded you, your Eucharist is ‘a kind of bread made of flour and water and baked in oven’. The Eucharist is not Christ himself and I tried to tell about this in my post - ‘The Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is Lie’.

 

If the scripture truly speaks that the bread from heaven is the Eucharist then, its truthfulness must shine, and it must be a more understandable piece when someone read it from the scripture. If it is understandable then it must be logical. If it is logical then it is rational. If it is rational, logical, understandable then the Eucharistic Theology is not proper to be called a mystery.

 

Obviously, all promoter of this sacrament failed to explain its rationality. They failed to explain, even to themselves, the practical explanation how this bread changes in whatever body Jesus has. In fact, it is a sacrament not founded on reason or proper knowledge as admitted by Thomas Aquinas (please see Question 75 Summa Theologiae, Third Part). Meaning, it is a kind of knowledge which is lacking in rationality since the very beginning of its conception.

 

To make it short, Eucharistic Theology is simply a believer’s theory and its words are founded on nothing but faith. Hence, seeing it in the scripture as if it was expressed literally or in metaphor is not possible without destroying itself every time an explanation was demanded in its truthfulness. Surely, it will not survive because; lies have no room in the presence of truth.

 

If you think I am wrong then try this. Let us take the first point of inquiry presented in Question 75 to wit:

 

(1)          Whether the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the consecration?

(from Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, Question 75: Of The Change Of Bread And Wine Into The Body And Blood Of Christ)

 

Test that bread before and after consecration, and you will find the same substance. It will remain  just a piece of bread and nothing special about it.

 

 

From: Rey Baltazar C. Tolentino

Edited December 4, 2013 by reyb