Transubstantiation

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Aug 22 2004, 04:30 PM'] I'll see what I can do, but it was just a little motto. I don't think the context has to do with the discussion at hand...the quote is just a quip that came to mind when you said you were confused. [/quote]
[quote]"And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And he was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible."
Tertullian (150-225), De Carne Christi[/quote]

I believe my quote was an adaptation of this line.

[ICTHUS]

So is this 'Christ is a sign of himself' thing official Roman Catholic doctrine, or just something conceived of to fend off another Protestant attack?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 22 2004, 04:47 PM'] So is this 'Christ is a sign of himself' thing official Roman Catholic doctrine, or just something conceived of to fend off another Protestant attack? [/quote]
It's official. Give me a minute and I'll find the relevant info in the Catechism.

[Theoketos]

I think that Catholics can affrim that the Eucharist is a sign...Of Christ Love, humility, forgivenss...It is also Christ.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine [color=red][Raphael: Understand that this is referring to before Consecration][/color] that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit [color=red][Raphael:  This is the moment of Consecration][/color], become Christ's Body and Blood...The signs of bread and wine [color=red][Raphael:  Another reference to before the Consecration, at which time they do symbolize, and only symbolize Christ's Body and Blood][/color] become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness in creation.  -CCC 1333[/quote]

Therefore, at the time of Consecration and afterward, which is when we rightfully refer to the former bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ, the Most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, Communion, et. al., the Eucharist truly is the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore actually is what it symbolizes. It may be helpful to understand the original meaning of the word "symbol." It comes from the Greek "symbolon" and is half of a broken object. A "symbolon" would be placed with it's other half to identify it. Thus, the word "symbol," in its original context, which the Catholic Church uses, refers to an object which represents what it is. A broken dish half, for instance, is of the material of the dish. It is rightfully said to be of the same essence as a dish. It would be matched with the other half, the dish. So, in context of the ancient meaning, a symbol is a thing which represents itself. The symbol of a thing, in the purest sense, is in truth the thing itself.

[Guest JeffCR07]

A thing can, in fact be a sign of itself. With regards to the eucharist, the actual bread and actual wine are symbols of the actual bread and wine used at the Last Supper, just as, at the moment of Consecration, the actual body and blood of Christ (which appear in accident as bread and wine, though they are not) are symbols of that same flesh and blood which Christ held in his hands after the first Consecration. Moreover, because the veil of time is pulled back at this sacrifice, we hold that these are one in the same. The body and blood of Christ at the altar after the Consecration are the same body and blood that was shed on the cross and the same body and blood consumed at the Last Supper. For if the loaves and fishes were multiplied for the 5000, how much more will the Bread of Life be multiplied for us, across all Nations and Ages?

So, ultimately, yes, the Body and Blood of Christ present and consumed at Mass is a sign of that same Body and Blood of Christ that was broken in the accident of bread and wine at the Last Supper and the accident of flesh and blood upon the cross.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Aug 22 2004, 05:36 PM'] A thing can, in fact be a sign of itself. With regards to the eucharist, the actual bread and actual wine are symbols of the actual bread and wine used at the Last Supper, just as, at the moment of Consecration, the actual body and blood of Christ (which appear in accident as bread and wine, though they are not) are symbols of that same flesh and blood which Christ held in his hands after the first Consecration. Moreover, because the veil of time is pulled back at this sacrifice, we hold that these are one in the same. The body and blood of Christ at the altar after the Consecration are the same body and blood that was shed on the cross and the same body and blood consumed at the Last Supper. For if the loaves and fishes were multiplied for the 5000, how much more will the Bread of Life be multiplied for us, across all Nations and Ages?

So, ultimately, yes, the Body and Blood of Christ present and consumed at Mass is a sign of that same Body and Blood of Christ that was broken in the accident of bread and wine at the Last Supper and the accident of flesh and blood upon the cross.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote]
As a person who was badly catechized as a child and hadn't even heard of the Real Presence until age 13 (when I began investigating the faith), I can testify that the more the faithful Catholic receives the Eucharist, the more and more sure he is that all of this is true until that certainty penetrates the marrow of your bones and the inner core of your soul.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Aug 22 2004, 02:03 PM'] Therefore, at the time of Consecration and afterward, which is when we rightfully refer to the former bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ, the Most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, Communion, et. al., the Eucharist truly is the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore actually is what it symbolizes. It may be helpful to understand the original meaning of the word "symbol." It comes from the Greek "symbolon" and is half of a broken object. A "symbolon" would be placed with it's other half to identify it. Thus, the word "symbol," in its original context, which the Catholic Church uses, refers to an object which represents what it is. A broken dish half, for instance, is of the material of the dish. It is rightfully said to be of the same essence as a dish. It would be matched with the other half, the dish. So, in context of the ancient meaning, a symbol is a thing which represents itself. The symbol of a thing, in the purest sense, is in truth the thing itself. [/quote]
I posted on this in a related thread, here's a link to that post:

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=17635&view=findpost&p=306219"]Signs and Symbols[/url]

[Theoketos]

Does any one ever feel the presence of the Eucharist in thier heart, as if it you heart was warm singing from Joy, and weeping from repentance, when they gaze on the tabernacle?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Aug 23 2004, 11:46 AM'] Does any one ever feel the presence of the Eucharist in thier heart, as if it you heart was warm singing from Joy, and weeping from repentance, when they gaze on the tabernacle? [/quote]
i do.

it penetrates me to the core.

every wall, every fascade, every defense mechanism, every attempt to run away from the truth that is within me broken down, shattered into a million pieces by the piercing glory of his Presence.

and there i lay, broken in front of the tabernacle, wondering why i ever tried to hide anything from Him.....

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Aug 23 2004, 12:46 PM'] Does any one ever feel the presence of the Eucharist in thier heart, as if it you heart was warm singing from Joy, and weeping from repentance, when they gaze on the tabernacle? [/quote]
Yes. Adoration rocks.

Still can't begin to imagine what ecstacy must feel like, though...and yet...I'm content with the feeling I get.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Is it true that cosubstantiation was developed as a compromise between Protestants during the Reformation to remain somewhat unified? I've heard it was settle a debate between supporters of transubstantiation and advocates of a symbolic bread and wine.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Aug 23 2004, 03:59 PM'] Yes. Adoration rocks.

Still can't begin to imagine what ecstacy must feel like, though...and yet...I'm content with the feeling I get. [/quote]
amen.

and to think I don't even completely comprehend what it truly truly is, and I'm filled with peace, joy and just this God given love in front of the Blessed Sacrament, I can't even imagine what heaven must feel like.

Pray for Us Oh Holy Mother of God! That we may be worthy of the Promises of Christ!

+JMJ

[Theoketos]

[quote name='thedude' date='Aug 23 2004, 08:07 PM'] Is it true that cosubstantiation was developed as a compromise between Protestants during the Reformation to remain somewhat unified?  I've heard it was settle a debate between supporters of transubstantiation and advocates of a symbolic bread and wine. [/quote]
Some might look at it that way, but Luther and Zwingli could not compromise on that at all. At one point Luther slammed his fist on the table shouting "Hoc est mea corpus" and stormed out of the room.

Really it was Calvin that trys to take the middle road saying that communion takes place when we lift out souls, in a sort of spiritual communion.

And Zwingli thought that is ment symbolically is, and that Jesus not be in the Eucharist becuase he is at the right hand of the Father.

Luther's biggest beef with transubstatiation comes from the fact that it is based upon Aristotilian principles, and since he rejects theologie's hand maid, he had to make up his own system.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]At one point Luther slammed his fist on the table shouting "Hoc est mea corpus" and stormed out of the room.[/quote]

Hehe...mea Corpus...Luther wasn't as good at Latin as he was at theology!





Hoc est MEUM CORPUS!