Christ Ascended Into Heaven

[jmjtina]

i hope this helps some:

Transubstantiation

By Father Paul A. Duffner, O.P.

Our Blessed Lord celebrated the first Mass at the Last Supper the night before He died. By His divine power He changed bread and wine into His own Body and Blood, so that He might institute a sacred rite whereby the sacrifice that He was to offer to the Father on Calvary the following day could be renewed through the centuries in a sacramental way. In order that His sacrifice on Calvary be perpetuated, during that same meal He conferred on the apostles the power to effect that same miraculous change. "Do this in memory of Me" (Lk. 22:19).

The Liturgy refers to the Eucharist - which is both a sacrifice and a sacrament - as a "mystery of faith." We can attempt to explain what Christ did at the Last Supper as described in the Gospels, but it will still remain a mystery that we believe because of our faith in His word. In no way can we come up with a natural explanation of this miraculous change and of His abiding presence which results from it. Nowhere in nature do we find a change similar to this. We will examine briefly the Church’s teaching on this central doctrine of our faith.

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

Martin Luther admitted the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. However, he rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation and taught that the glorified Body of Christ is present in the Eucharist along with the bread and wine (consubstantiation); and he restricted the real presence to the moment of receiving Communion. Other reformers held that the Body of Christ is present only as a sign, that the words of Christ are to be taken in a figurative or symbolic sense, not in their literal meaning.

Confronted with these challenges to the traditional Catholic teaching on the Eucharist by the Protestant reformers, the Council of Trent issued an authoritative teaching on this change of the substance of the bread and wine at the consecration of the Mass.

"Because Christ our Redeemer declared that what He offered under the species of bread was truly His Body, it has always been the faith of the Church of God (and this holy Synod now states it again) that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change takes place in which the entire substance of the bread is changed into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and the entire substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood. This change the Holy Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls "transubstantiation" (Sess. 13, ch.4).

We are dealing here with something that cannot be verified or even examined by natural science. The nature of the change brought about in the Eucharist, as taught by the Church, lies beyond what chemistry, physics or biology are able to establish. We have it on the clear words of Our Lord, and we can only assent to it through the supernatural light of faith. But it will be helpful to examine a bit in detail various aspects of this doctrine of the Church.

NOTHING REMAINS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE BREAD AND WINE

One thing that might be a source of confusion in this matter is that the Church in the expression of this doctrine uses the word "substance" as it is understood in philosophy. In everyday communication we speak of a substance as something we can see, or feel, or taste, etc. However, in philosophy a distinction is made between what a thing is in itself (its substance), and the perceptible qualities or characteristics which exist in that substance (its accidents).

So, in discussing the question of the Eucharist, theologians make the distinction between what they call the substance of the bread and wine, i.e. the reality underlying all its visible, tangible, measurable qualities of the bread and wine, but which in itself is not visible, or tangible, or measurable - for it has no extension in space; and the accidents or appearances of the bread and wine - in which are included all those outward characteristics which can be perceived by the sense of sight, taste, touch, smell and hearing. All such characteristics, as we said, in philosophical language are referred to as "accidents" (not to be confused with the common meaning of that word).

When at the consecration of the Mass the words are pronounced "This is My Body," in an instant the underlying substance of the bread is changed into the BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY of Christ. By the power of the words of consecration, the substance of the bread is changed into the Body of Christ. However, Christ cannot be divided. The living God-Man becomes present at those words. There can be no physical separation of the Body of Christ from the Blood that flows in His glorified Body; nor can there be a separation of His Body from the human soul that gives life to that Body; nor can that human body and soul be separated from the Divine Word with which it was united at the moment of the Incarnation. For this reason the whole Christ (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) is present by reason of concomitance," as theologians call it, at the instant the words of consecration are pronounced.

In like manner when, at the consecration of the Mass, the words are pronounced "This is My Blood," by the power of the words there is present the Precious Blood of Christ. Yet, "by reason of concomitance" that is, by reason of the necessary unity of Christ, there is present the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

This is why the faithful who communicate only under the species of the bread receive the whole Christ no less than those who partake also of the chalice. To receive Communion under both species might, for some, symbolize or express more vividly the sacrifice of Christ in which His Blood was shed; but in itself it does not bring more grace. The grace of the sacrament depends more on the openness of heart to the One received, i.e. detachment of soul from those things that tend to enslave the heart.

NO PARALLEL IN NATURE

In spite of the fact that there is a complete and total change of substance of the bread and wine at the words of consecration, the appearances or perceptible characteristics, (the accidents) remain the same. What we see and touch and feel, etc., our senses would tell us, is bread and wine. But the reality beneath those appearances, our faith tells us, is the person of Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The outward visible characteristics of bread and wine truly continue to exist, so our senses do not deceive us. However, by the power of God those outward characteristics are sustained in existence without the substance in which they formerly existed - to serve as an external sign for the sacrament of the Eucharist. Pope Leo XIII spoke of this in his encyclical "Mirae Caritatis:"

"This miracle is the greatest of its kind . . . for here all the laws of nature are suspended; the whole substance of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood; and the species of bread and wine are sustained by the power of God without the support of any underlying substance."

St. Thomas Aquinas gives three reasons why it is fitting that God intervenes in this miraculous way (III, 75, 5).

Because it is not customary but horrible for men to eat human flesh and drink human blood; hence Christ’s flesh and blood are given to us under the species of those things more commonly consumed by men.

Lest this sacrament might be derided by unbelievers, were we to eat the flesh and blood of Jesus under his own proper species.

That while we receive Our Lord’s Body and Blood invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.

Hence there is no parallel to this in all of nature where there is a complete change of substance, while there is no change in the external sense-perceptible characteristics of the original substance. In fact, every time the priest at Mass pronounces the words of consecration there is a double miracle wrought by the power of God, a miracle not witnessed by the senses, but known only by the light of faith:

The miraculous change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood;

The miracle by which God sustains in existence the perceptible qualities or characteristics of the bread and wine, although the underlying substance no longer exists. St. Thomas wrote so beautifully of this mystery in the eucharistic hymn sung at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament: "Praestet fides supplementum sensuum defectui." (Faith supplies what the senses cannot perceive)

IN WHAT MANNER IS CHRIST PRESENT

As we have pointed out, when we receive Holy Communion, we receive Jesus, the God-man who suffered died and rose for us. Our divine Savior is not only present in each and every consecrated host, but in every part of each host. Just as before the consecration each part of the host was bread, and every drop in the chalice was wine, so after the consecration every smallest particle of the consecrated host contains the whole Christ, and every drop of the contents of the chalice contains the whole Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Consequently Christ is not divided by the breaking of the host.

We must be careful, however, about imagining how Christ could be present in the small host, or in a tiny part of it. First of all, Jesus is not present in the sacred host in miniature, or in a condensed manner. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, "Christ’s Body is in this sacrament ‘by way of substance,’ not by way of quantity" (III,76,1,ad 3) that is, not by extension in space. The whole Christ is present in this sacrament with all the faculties and characteristics of His glorified body; but it is an entirely supernatural and unique presence made possible by the power of God, and discerned only by the eyes of faith. As St. Ambrose reminds us, "The word of Christ which could make out of nothing that which did not exist, can it not change things already in existence into that which they were not?"

Christ is present in the Eucharist as He exists now in heaven, that is, in His glorified body. When Our Lord changed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood at the Last Supper, it was His mortal body, for He had not yet died and risen with His glorified body that was immortal. If there are on record miraculous cases where the Sacred Host has bled, that does not change the fact that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the glorified Christ. Our Lord could manifest this mark of His passion in this way to emphasize the fact that the Eucharist is a sacrifice (spiritually renewed at Mass) as well as a sacrament. Pope Leo XIII adds another reason:

"In order that human reason may more willingly pay its homage to this great mystery, there have not been wanting, as an aid to faith, certain prodigies wrought in His honor, both in ancient times as in our own, of which in more than one place there exists public and notable records and memorials" (ibid.).

Too, one might wonder how long does the bodily presence of Christ in His physical reality (i.e. His sacramental presence) remain with us after we receive Him in Holy Communion. He remains with us in His sacramental presence as long as the species of bread and wine retain their true characteristics of bread and wine. Just as true bread and wine can corrupt, or undergo chemical change, so that it is no longer bread or wine, so can the species of bread and wine in the Eucharist undergo such a change, as happens when we receive Holy Communion. When the species of bread in the consecrated host changes within the body so that it no longer has the characteristics of true bread, then the sacramental presence of Jesus ceases. The same is true of the species of wine if one received this sacrament under that form as well as receiving the consecrated host (St.Thos. III,77,4). The reason for this is that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ really present under the species or characteristics of bread and wine. If the characteristics of bread and wine cease to be present, the sacrament no longer exists, and the sacramental presence of Christ ceases. However, His spiritual presence through grace, not only remains, but has been increased through the reception of the sacrament.

THE REAL PRESENCE

Although Christ ascended into heaven depriving mankind of his visible presence, He remains with us hidden beneath the veil of the Eucharistic host to continue on the work of redemption, making intercession for us before the Father through the renewal of His sacrifice and His abiding presence. Faith alone makes us aware of His presence, for reason cannot comprehend it. Yet reason knows that what is of divine faith and divinely revealed is infallibly certain. Christ is present in the Eucharist with all the perfections of his humanity together with the infinite grandeur of His divinity, both of which are hidden under the appearances of bread and wine, as St. Thomas expresses so beautifully in the hymn "Adoro Te:"

"In cruce latebat sola Deitas

At hic latet simul et humanitas."

(On the Cross was hidden only His divinity,

But here lies veiled also His humanity.)

Our Savior present in the Eucharist is identical with the Jesus Christ of history, with the Jesus before whom the angels and saints of heaven worship in awe. He is the same Jesus whom Mary brought forth into the world, whom the shepherds found wrapped in swaddling clothes in a manger . . . the same Jesus who taught the multitudes . . . who cured the leper, the blind, the lame and raised the dead . . . the same Jesus who was transfigured on Mt. Tabor . . . the same Jesus who received the kiss of the traitor, was scourged, crowned with thorns, spat upon and treated as a fool . . . the same Jesus who was crucified to redeem us, rose from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of His Father. And to think that at times kneeling before the Tabernacle we cannot think of anything to say!

While our reflection of Christ in the Eucharist centers mainly around his sacred humanity, it is a divine Person that we receive in Holy Communion, the only-begotten Son of the Father. Yet, the divine Word is never alone, for the Father abides in the Son and the Son in the Father, and both are united in the Holy Spirit, all possessing the same divine nature (Jn.14:11). Thus the divine Trinity of Persons, of whose vision is the beatitude of heaven, abides with the Word in the Eucharist Host.

Yet, our primary attention to Christ in the Eucharist will always be centered on Him in His sacred humanity, precisely because He took on our human nature to live and suffer the torturous death that He did - to show us the love of the Father for mankind, and to teach us by word and example how to return that love. In receiving this sacrament we receive Him who is infinite Love, and all the gifts and blessings of the Incarnation and Redemption are made available to us in the measure that is proportionate to our eagerness to receive them. That is to say, the love (not necessarily an emotional disposition) with which we receive our Eucharistic Lord will determine the extent to which this sacrament produces its principally intended effect, namely, transforming the soul into the likeness of Christ. Fr. M.M. Philipon, O.P. speaks of this:

"By producing in the soul all the various effects of a fervent love, the Eucharist transforms us into Christ, so that all the thought and aspirations of the Word Incarnate toward His Father and toward men also become ours. It eliminates step by step all attachment to sin; it bestows an increase of grace; it helps us to progress in every virtue." (The Sacraments in the Christian Life).

[jmjtina]

and here's another one, hope it helps some more. :D

The basic objection to the Catholic doctrine

of the Real Presence is not that it is

against Scripture, but that it is against reason.

Transubstantiation and reason

By John Young

Protestants reject transubstantiation, and so do many Catholic scholars. The average Catholic is vague concerning the nature of the Eucharistic presence of Christ, and one can sympathize with him, in view of the lack of clear teaching about the Most Blessed Sacrament.

The basic objection to the Catholic doctrine of the real presence is not that it is against Scripture, but that it is against reason. The words of Jesus seem plain enough. “This is my body.” This is my blood.” “Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life in you.” “My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink.” When some of his disciples complained, “This is a hard saying; who can accept it?”, he didn’t explain that he had not been speaking literally in saying he would give his body to eat and his blood to drink. Instead he let them go. As St. John tells us, many left him because they would not accept this teaching.

Our Lord’s words are not interpreted non-literally because that is the obvious way to interpret them, but because a literal interpretation seems to be repugnant to reason. The conservative Protestant theologian Louis Berkhof, in his famous work Systematic Theology, insists that the Roman teaching “. . . violates the human senses, where it asks us to believe that what tastes and looks like bread and wine, is really flesh and blood; and human reason, where it requires belief in the separation of a substance and its properties and in the presence of a material body in several places at the same time, both of which are contrary to reason.”1

Among Catholics firmly committed to all that the Church teaches, one finds much confusion and various misunderstandings regarding Christ’s Eucharistic presence. Take these questions: Do we receive (for instance) Christ’s head and arms and feet? If the accidents of bread were removed, would we see the substance of his body, as though a curtain had been drawn back? Are the bread and wine converted into his soul and divinity? Attempted answers to these questions show up the confusion existing in the minds of most Catholics.

Then there is the grave situation of those Catholics who think transubstantiation is against reason. Common sense and science, they believe, demand its rejection. It is an impossible theory based on the erroneous natural science of Aristotle.

This denial is extremely serious, for the Church teaches infallibly that Christ is present through transubstantiation. As the Council of Trent says, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church repeats: “. . . 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.”2 Trent pronounces an anathema against those who deny transubstantiation.3

Substance and accidents

If one thinks transubstantiation is repugnant to reason, this may be due to not having understood what substance is, and how it is related to accidents. We can’t see a substance or touch it or taste it, so it may seem unreal. Perhaps we tend to think of it as an inert something, having no function except to support the active qualities shown by the senses. George Berkeley (1685-1753) declared material substance to be a meaningless term. He says: “It neither acts, nor perceives, nor is perceived; for this is all that is meant by saying it is an inert, senseless, unknown substance: which is a definition entirely made up of negatives, excepting only the relative notion of its standing under or supporting.”4

That notion of substance is grotesque, but it does not seem so to an empiricist philosopher because of his reduction of all knowledge to sense knowledge; and it continues to influence some theologians when they think about transubstantiation. That is one reason for the widespread rejection of this dogma, and the substitution of transignification or transfinalization.

The truth is that denial of the reality of substance is a contradiction of common sense. For something must either exist in its own right, such as water, a tree, a cat; or else it must exist in something else, such as color or shape. What “stands on its own feet,” as it were, is a substance; what exists in something else is an accident. Denial of substances leaves color, size, weight and so on without a subject of inherence; which implies a color which is not the color of anything, size which is not the size of anything, weight which is not the weight of anything.

The substance is the essence, the nature, of a thing which exists in its own right. It isn’t inert, as Berkeley imagined, but dynamic, for it is the source from which all the powers and activities emanate. The accidents depend on it for their existence and their operation.

Take a stone, by way of example. We experience its hardness, its smoothness, its color, its shape. But the substance that has these attributes eludes our observation. Even were we to break the stone in two we wouldn’t see the substance; if we broke it into a hundred pieces we would be no more successful. So we might try some scientific tests, but still the results would be in the order of phenomena.

The substance of the stone is material, but it is not sensible. Yet it is not unknown, for its accidents manifest it. From the accidents perceived by sight and the other senses, the intellect gains an insight into the essence (the substance). Therefore words like stone, water, tree, horse have meaning: each brings to mind the thing named, and we have in our intellect the essence of the reality in question, although never perfectly, for no substance can be perfectly understood through abstraction from sense knowledge.

The dogma of transubstantiation teaches that the whole substance of bread is changed into that of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine into that of his blood, leaving the accidents of bread and wine unaffected. Reason, of course, can’t prove that this happens. But it is not evidently against reason either; it is above reason. Our senses, being confined to phenomena, cannot detect the change; we know it only by faith in God’s word.

After the priest consecrates the bread and wine, their accidents alone remain, without inhering in any substance. They can’t inhere in the bread and wine, for these no longer exist; nor do they inhere in Christ’s body and blood, for they are not his accidents. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: “. . . the accidents which present themselves to the eyes or other senses exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject.”5 St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that God directly sustains the quantity of bread (or wine) in being, and that the other accidents inhere in the quantity.6 For quantity is the fundamental accident: the others, such as color, exist as quantified—as having extension. There is no such thing as a non-extended color.

Answers to some difficulties

I quoted Louis Berkhof’s assertion that separation of a substance and its properties is contrary to reason. If we said this happened naturally it would inDouche be contrary to reason. But what we say is that it happens through the supernatural action of God. He holds all things in being simply by an act of his will, the accidents depending on their substances as on secondary causes; and in the Eucharist he dispenses with those secondary causes.

What of the objection, also given by Berkhof, that a material body cannot be present in several places at the same time? Well, a substance becomes present in a place because of its quantity; substance of itself is indifferent to place. So when this unique conversion occurs, caused supernaturally by God—a conversion of substance into substance—Christ’s body can be present in any number of places, being related to the place by reason of the accidents of bread which are situated there.

Berkhof asserts that it is a violation of what the senses show to be asked to accept that what tastes and looks like bread and wine is really flesh and blood. But what are we tasting and seeing? The accidents of bread and wine which remain after the consecration. They have not changed, and they taste and look as they did before the consecration. There is no denial of what the senses show.

Earlier I mentioned confusion among Catholics about the implications of Christ’s Eucharistic presence, and I posed the question: Do we receive (for instance) Christ’s head and arms and feet? Many today would be uncomfortable with an affirmative answer, which would savor, to them, of a grossly materialistic view of the Real Presence. Yet it is the right answer. Suppose we didn’t receive those parts: then the same would have to be said of all the other parts of his body. So there’d be nothing left! We would not be receiving his body. As the Catechism of the Council of Trent says, in this sacrament are contained “. . . all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews. . . .”7

Another question noted earlier asked whether the accidents are hiding the substance from our gaze, so that their removal would be like drawing back a curtain, allowing us to see Jesus’ body. If one is tempted to say yes, a moment’s reflection should show that the right answer must be no. A substance can’t be seen or tasted or experienced by any of the senses. To think otherwise would reduce substances to the status of accidents, thus making it impossible to see what the dogma of transubstantiation means, and inevitably leading one into bewilderment when trying to explore the teaching.

A third question asked whether the bread and wine are converted into our Lord’s soul and divinity. Most orthodox Catholics will instinctively answer yes, because they know well that we receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. But that cannot be the answer, for it would involve the absurdity of a piece of bread becoming God. It would be converted from bread into divinity. A finite piece of matter would become the Infinite Spirit.

The Church teaches that the bread is changed into Christ’s body and the wine into his blood, and that his soul and divinity become present through concomitance. He is one indivisible being, so when the bread is changed into his body, the whole Christ necessarily becomes present. But the actual transubstantiation—the changing of one substance into another—is only of his body and blood. It is the change of a material substance into another material substance.

As the Council of Trent says, the body is “. . . under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who has now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with his body and soul.”8

What of the accidents of Christ’s body? They too are there; otherwise he would not be fully present. As St. Thomas says: “. . . since the substance of Christ’s body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ’s body and all its other accidents are really in this sacrament.9 But the mode of their existence is conditioned by the fact that Jesus becomes present through transubstantiation. Substance is converted into substance, and the accidents, consequently, are there in the manner of substance.

Think of quantity. It is the fundamental accident, as we have noted. Normally it is the accident whereby its substance occupies a place; but the essential thing it does is to give the substance parts. And in the Eucharist all the parts of Christ’s body are present and are situated relatively to each other. But because of the unique way in which the quantity is there—in the manner of substance—the parts are not spread out in relation to the surrounding place. To put it another way: substance as such is distinct from quantity, and it occupies a place only because of its quantity. But when quantity becomes present through transubstantiation it exists in the manner of substance, and therefore without actual extension.

An insidious obstacle to an understanding of the Real Presence (of course it can never be fully understood in this life) is the almost overwhelming influence of the imagination. The imagination is a picture-making power which accompanies all our thinking; but it is distinct from the intellect and it deals only with what can be seen, touched or in some way sensed. The deeper level of being, accessible to the intellect, is beyond the reach of the imagination. However, the imagination still provides images, and these easily mislead us.

For example, the statement that Jesus is in the Eucharist with all his parts may bring a picture into the imagination of a tiny body small enough to fit in the host. We know it’s not like that, but the imagery can still distort one’s thought, or block it, or even tempt one to discard the Real Presence in favor of a symbolical or “spiritual” presence.

Deepening our faith

A clearer understanding of what God, through his Church, tells us about the Eucharist, and a consideration of the objections to the doctrine, should deepen our faith. Vagueness and perplexity about it are often associated with errors lurking deep in the mind—errors which, if allowed to surface, can bring temptations against faith. A right understanding will dissipate the errors and show that reason need not be embarrassed by transubstantiation, even though it far transcends reason.

Not only that, but exploration of the doctrine makes it more real to us. We realize more clearly that the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ are as truly present as they are in heaven, or as they were when he labored in his workshop in Nazareth. While that realization is dominant, every genuflection will be a conscious act of adoration of the Incarnate God; the Consecration will always absorb our attention; we will never want to hurry out of church as soon as Mass is over.

Jesus comes to us physically because of his great love for us. Anyone who loves wants to be physically close to the one who is loved, but it is sometimes impossible. It is not impossible for God. Divine power changes bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, and he dwells physically on earth in every tabernacle, and comes physically into us in Holy Communion.

1 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1958, p. 652.

2 DS 1642; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1376.

3 DS 1652.

4 George Berkeley, On the Principles of Human Knowledge, section 68.

5 The Catechism of the Council of Trent, translated by McHugh and Callan, Sinag-Tala Publishers, Greenhills, Phillipines, p. 229.

6 Summa Theol., III, q. 77, a. 2.

7 Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 233.

8 DS 1640.

9 Summa Theol., III, q. 76, a. 4.

[jmjtina]

Last one I promise!!!!

BIBLE PROVES REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN EUCHARIST

[photosynthesis]

Jesus is God.

God is infinite and limitless. He goes beyond time and space. While Jesus in the Incarnation occupied space for a period of time, He is not limited to that space and that time because He is God. After all, Jesus said to us "I am with you always, even until the end of time" right before He ascended into Heaven. He's here with us right now, and He's in Heaven. How can that be?

Jesus, at the last supper, instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist because it was His way of staying close to us. The Eucharist is Christ's real presence on earth, it gives us life and transforms us into new creations. Jesus wanted us to recieve this Sacrament frequently when He said "Do this in remembrance of Me." Yes, Our Lord ascended into Heaven and He is seated at the right hand of the Father, but He is also in our hearts and in the Eucharist. He is with us always. This is the mystery of the Eucharist.

[Katholikos]

JMJTina, I'm grateful to you for these articles. Whammy stuff!

[Katholikos]

Icthus, you seem to be struggling with Calvinism. Why not go to a real ex-Calvinist turned Catholic and find out what they found deficient in the "Reformed" doctrine?

The Reformed doctrine was 16 centuries too late to have been the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. No Christian thought of it until Calvin invented it. You and others "find" Reformed doctrines in the Bible by exogesis -- reading the doctrines into scripture as Calvin did; not by exegesis -- allowing scripture to speak for itself from the context in which it was written -- the soul of the teaching Catholic Church. The Church was already teaching "transubstantiation" (though that term was not yet used), aka the Real Presence, long before the Scriptures were ever written. The Church taught it from the beginning of its very existence because the Apostles taught it.

The 'Reformed' can't tell you which books belong in the Bible without using the list drawn up by the Catholic Church. So how do they know what Scripture is? Sola Scriptura is a most illogical doctrine, and that's the basis of Protestantism.

For ex-Calvinists, one suggestion is Kenneth Howell, Ph.D, Ph.D. He has doctorates both in the biblical languages and in history. He was an ordained minister who was teaching the NT in Greek at a Presbyterian seminary when he resigned to become a Catholic. The class was studying the Lord's Supper in the New Testament, and he -- the professor! -- came to the Catholic POV. He's now at the University of Illinois. CHN can give you his e-dress.

And of course, there's Scott Hahn, biblical scholar and theologian, former Presbyterian pastor.

And Marcus Grodi, former Presbyterian pastor and founder of the Coming Home Network, a ministry to Protestant ministers and others inquiring into the Catholic Faith. He and his organization helped almost 300 pastors of many denominations come home to Rome last year alone.

http://www.chnetwork.org

And there's Paul R Key, son of a Presbyterian minister and an ex-Presbyterian pastor himself, author of the little book "Nine-five Reasons for Becoming or Remaining Catholic." CHN published his book and I'm sure could furnish information on how to contact him.

Becoming Catholic was not an easy matter for these ministers. It cost them dearly. It meant giving up the career for which they had trained for a lifetime and financial security for themselves and their families, which no prospects of future employment.

To quote our phatmass sister, Anna, careful you don't tip over the barque of Peter while you're trying to get a better look at the sharks. Swimming with sharks can be fatal.

JMJ Likos

[ICTHUS]

Thanks Likos.

I have one question about Scott Hahn though. He seems to misrepresent Presbyterian theology when he discusses the Eucharist from the point of view of a Presbyterian-turned-Catholic.

He says that they believed that the Eucharist is merely a symbol. This, as I understand it, is not the Calvinist doctrine of the Eucharist, strictly speaking.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIX, s. 7-8

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and inDouche, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

8. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament, yet they receive not the thing signified thereby; but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and bring judgment on themselves. Wherefore all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's Table, and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.

I thought it rather strange, in "Rome Sweet Home" that Scott says that he saw the Eucharist as merely a symbol. If he were a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he would have believed the above.

[jmjtina]

I would suggest writing to him. He answers his mail. :D

[VeraMaria]

amesome articles, tina!!

Thanks!!

[ICTHUS]

I emailed Scott Hahn once and his secretary intercepted it and told me (not in those words) to find the answer to the question myself.

Having said that, I emailed CHN and asked them if they had any former Presbyterians on staff (not in those words!)

[Katholikos]

Please understand that I was never a Presbyterian. Never could get past that TULIP. I found the idea of predestination, as Calvin viewed it, repugnant (and untrue).

There are a couple of things we know about Mr. and Mrs. Scott Hahn. They were both staunch, devoted, "orthodox" Presbyterians. He was ordained for the Presbyterian ministry. Her father (last name Kirk), a pastor, met in his official capacity with the Pope, so he's gotta be a high-ranking representative of the Presbyterian church in the U.S. I think he's #1. I had two copies of Rome Sweet Home. I gave one away and can't find the other one at the moment, so I can't check to be sure. Her brother is also a Presbyterian minister. The point is, how likely is it that Hahn would have believed something that the "orthodox" Presbyterian church didn't teach?

I'm guessing that Hahn wasn't giving a full exposition of the Presbyterian teaching on the Lord's Supper but only a brief "shorthand" answer, when he said "it's symbolic."

There are Protestants who say that the "Lord's Supper" is "symbolic," and others who say that it's "spiritual." But in neither case do they ever mean that Christ is Really, Truly, and Substantially Present (excepting Lutherans and Episcopalians who come close, but that's another story). So I understand why Hahn would say that as a Presbyterian he believed Communion was symbolic. Theres no discernable difference (to me) between a sacrament that is "spiritual" and one that is "symbolic." It's never "real" in the Catholic sense.

I read your post very carefully. I think the Westminster Confession is saying that the Lord's Supper is "spiritual," i.e., not the Real Presence of Christ. If its "not the Real Presence of Christ," it's symbolic. Do you find something else in those words?

You are very bright, Icthus. Polar Bear is more on your level and can make this analysis far better than I. Calling Polar Bear, Calling Polar Bear . . .

If you've not been successful elsewhere, why not ask EWTN? Tell them that you're struggling with Reformed doctrine, and can they recommend someone who could help you? They've got Marcus Grodi, ex-Presbyterian minister and friend of Scott Hahn, on staff. There may be others. They also have a question and answer feature, with trained theologians who answer by email. Have you tried there?

Did CHN not help you? They have "helpers" of various denominations for this very purpose.

I know you've read Rome Sweet Home, but others may not have, and I wanted to "set the scene" before giving you my conclusion.

Peace be with you, Icthus. Let us know what's happenin'. It's important that you spend the time to investigate and understand Reformed theology thoroughly.

Don't leave the nest your mama made for you prematurely. Stay and pray.

Oremus pro invicem (Let us pray for one another), Likos

[Anna]

LIKOS

I think the Westminster Confession is saying that the Lord's Supper is "spiritual," i.e., not the Real Presence of Christ. If its "not the Real Presence of Christ," it's symbolic. Do you find something else in those words?

This is exactly what I thought earlier in the day when I read this post, but didn't say anything...sorry.

They say It isn't "carnal," so it's not the actual Body and Blood of Our Lord.

If the Eucharist is not the actual Body and Blood of Jesus, then it stands to reason that it is being regarded as less than "real," or symbolic, though beneficial in a spiritual way.

And prolly Professor Hahn didn't see the need to get into the nitty gritty of Presyterian teaching, as he has abandoned it for Something far richer.

Pax Christi. <><

[ICTHUS]

LIKOS

This is exactly what I thought earlier in the day when I read this post, but didn't say anything...sorry.

They say It isn't "carnal," so it's not the actual Body and Blood of Our Lord.

If the Eucharist is not the actual Body and Blood of Jesus, then it stands to reason that it is being regarded as less than "real," or symbolic, though beneficial in a spiritual way.

And prolly Professor Hahn didn't see the need to get into the nitty gritty of Presyterian teaching, as he has abandoned it for Something far richer.

Pax Christi. <><

Well, there is a *world* of difference between the Baptist view of communion (which stems from the teaching of the Deformer Ulrich Zwingli) and is strictly memorialistic (i.e. they do not believe that any graces are conferred in the partaking of the elements) and the Presbyterian view on communion, which stems from the teaching of John Calvin, that is, that Christ is present *spiritually* in the Eucharist, (more so, I would say, than in any of the other works of the Church) but not carnally, as As our favorite Presbyterian

Edited December 4, 2003 by ICTHUS

[Seatbelt Blue]

Grrr. I dont need snide comments like this one. Deal with the argument, hyper. I could very well play devils advocate and argue that Christ built his Church on Peter, but that the Church lost the plot and had to be reformed. But Im not going to, because that idea is foreign to me.

But I question wether transubstantiation is a legitimate development of Scriptural and Patristic teaching, in light of the fact that Christ ascended, body, soul, and divinity into Heaven, and Scripture makes no mention of His coming back down until the second coming (save for the conversion of St. Paul, of course)

There's a very simple proof to every issue one could possibly have. 1 Timothy 3:15

[PedroX]

ICTHUS,

I can assure you that the average Presbyterian thinks of "communion" as a symbolic act. If pressed, many will say it is something more that "just a symbol", but much less than the Real Prescense. I went through deacon formation in the PCA, I know Scott Hahn's brother-in-law. I'm sure that Prof. Hahn was simply using a well known short cut in evangelical language. Remember that "Rome Sweet Home" is a memoir, not an apologetic.

peace...