The Eucharist

[Diamond]

I'm a Protestant. I've been researching a little into what divides Catholics and Protestants on the subject of communion. I read a couple articles from the Catholic Defense Network, but I couldn't get all my questions answered.

This is my question: where does Christ being real in Communion end and symbolism begin? There is no literal, measurable transformation in the bread or wine when it is blessed. How then can you distinguish between a literal and a physical change?

Protestants (at least the church I'm associated with) would most likely agree that Christ is with us spiritually in the Communion act. If you like this wording, He is [i]really[/i] spriitually there. Since the bread does not change, He is obviously not physically there. The only option I can see is that the Eucharist means exactly what I would agree with: that Christ is [i]really spiritually[/i] there in Communion.

I'm hoping I'm wrong so I can get some schooling.

Thanks for the help.

[Fidei Defensor]

When the bread and wine are consecrated during the Mass, they under go a change in their substance and become the Body and Blood of Jesus, meaning Jesus is truly present.

The bread and wine still [i]appear[/i] to be bread and wine, but their substance is no longer of bread and wine, but the Body and Blood of Jesus.

[Diamond]

If it's a change in substance, wouldn't the change be measurable through science?

I was under the impression that the Catholic Church had of late especially supported the idea of science and Christianity being non-contradicting truths.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='991938' date='May 28 2006, 03:40 PM']
When the bread and wine are consecrated during the Mass, they under go a change in their substance and become the Body and Blood of Jesus, meaning Jesus is truly present.

The bread and wine still [i]appear[/i] to be bread and wine, but their substance is no longer of bread and wine, but the Body and Blood of Jesus.
[/quote]
to piggy back on him

the process is called Transubstantiation

[quote name='Diamond' post='991939' date='May 28 2006, 03:44 PM']
If it's a change in substance, wouldn't the change be measurable through science?

I was under the impression that the Catholic Church had of late especially supported the idea of science and Christianity being non-contradicting truths.
[/quote]
somebody can correct me if i'm wrong here.

it is one of those mysteries that science can not explain.

but through faith we believe it to be.

John 6:55-56

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

he wasn't speaking symbolically, he was speaking literally

[uruviel]

Us Catholics, we don't rely on science, we rely on something better, faith. We rely on what the Church teaches us. aka what Jesus has taught us. I'd rather rely on GOD than on the weak establishments of man.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Diamond' post='991939' date='May 28 2006, 09:44 PM']
If it's a change in substance, wouldn't the change be measurable through science?

I was under the impression that the Catholic Church had of late especially supported the idea of science and Christianity being non-contradicting truths.
[/quote]

Science and Christianity aren't contradictory but that doesnt mean that through scientific methodology you can grasp all the truths of the Christian faith. Ordinarily when people try to walk on water they sink, ordinarily when people try to feed 5,000 people with only a few loaves and fish it doesnt work, ordinarily when people die they stay dead. Yet, as you well know, Catholicism demands we assent to the truth that Jesus did all these things and it does not go beyond reason to believe that He did if you accept the Bible's statement that "the Word was God...and the Word was made flesh" (Jn 1:1 and 14).

It is not unreasonable to believe that the same God who can create from nothing can suspend the physical laws that govern what He has made. Hence, it is not unreasonable to believe the miracle stories of the Bible or that Jesus died and rose from the dead or that there will be a general judgement and ressurection of all men etc. None of these things can be varified by scientific method but just because it cannot be observed and quantified it doesnt make it unreasonable. For instance:

[quote]We can and do come to a knowledge of universal truths, like "all humans are mortal," not by sense experience alone (for we can never sense all humans) but through abstracting the common universal essence or nature of humanity from the few specimens we do experience by our senses. We know that all humans are mortal because humanity, as such, involves mortality, it is the nature of a human being to be mortal; mortality follows necessarily from its having an animal body. We can understand that. We have the power of understanding, or intellectual intuition, or insight, in addition to the mental powers of sensation and calculation, which are the only two the nominalist and empiricist give us. (We share sensation with animals and calculation with computers; where is the distinctively human way of knowing for the empiricist and nominalist?) --Peter Kreeft[/quote]

Now given that it is not contradictory to logic to suppose that God can suspend the natural laws which would demand that a change in substance demands a change in accidents (form) how would belief in Transubstantiation be remotely illogical? If the aforesaid tenant of faith is unreasonable then the whole Christian edifice is equally so since a substantial amount of Christian beliefs cannot be empirically tested e.g. the existence of a soul, angels, life after death etc.etc.

This short piece on [url="http://www.adoremus.org/0405RealPresence.html"]Christ's presence in the Eucharist: True, Real and Substantial[/url] by Avery Cardinal Dulles SJ further elaborates on transubstantion. Whilst this audio clip [url="http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=iq_697.ra"]communion as reunion[/url] by Dr Scott Hahn justifies the Catholic belief therein.

[Nathan]

[quote name='Myles Domini' post='992038' date='May 28 2006, 06:24 PM']
Science and Christianity aren't contradictory but that doesnt mean that through scientific methodology you can grasp all the truths of the Christian faith. Ordinarily when people try to walk on water they sink, ordinarily when people try to feed 5,000 people with only a few loaves and fish it doesnt work, ordinarily when people die they stay dead. Yet, as you well know, Catholicism demands we assent to the truth that Jesus did all these things and it does not go beyond reason to believe that He did if you accept the Bible's statement that "the Word was God...and the Word was made flesh" (Jn 1:1 and 14).

It is not unreasonable to believe that the same God who can create from nothing can suspend the physical laws that govern what He has made. Hence, it is not unreasonable to believe the miracle stories of the Bible or that Jesus died and rose from the dead or that there will be a general judgement and ressurection of all men etc. None of these things can be varified by scientific method but just because it cannot be observed and quantified it doesnt make it unreasonable. [/quote]

Well said.

[Robbi]

[quote name='uruviel' post='992023' date='May 28 2006, 05:54 PM']
Us Catholics, we don't rely on science, we rely on something better, faith. We rely on what the Church teaches us. aka what Jesus has taught us. I'd rather rely on GOD than on the weak establishments of man.
[/quote]

In the Real Presence - yes, we rely on faith and Chruch teaching which the Real Presence (transubstatiation) is defined as infallible even though science cannot prove that it IS the Body & Blood of Christ.

That doesnt mean we dont rely on science as long as it does not conflict with the Church teaching, - otherwise we would be taking the Amish view.

On a side note - the Real Presence was believed by Christians until the protestant reformation - where Luther opened the flood gates for private interpretation. Therefore amongst even protestants there are even differing views on what the communion actually is.


im a slow typer - every one beat me to it!

[Diamond]

I think I understand a little better. Still, is there a miracle that demonstrates this idea? I have seen God do the impossible; I have not seen Him do the irrational. When he multiplied the fish the firsh were still really there. The people did not eat air and find their stomachs filled. When Jesus turned water to wine, the change was actual and physical. People did not drink a non-alcoholic, clear beverage and declare it wine. Is there a basis for this or is the Eucharis considered unique?

If the change is not physical, what is it? The miracles I know are eiher spiritual or physical. The Eucharist insists on another state of realness beyond physical and yet un-spiritual. If the change is physical; why is it not seen? Isn't something that can be measured what would be considered a physical change? If the change is spiritual, your ideas do not conflict with Protestants (at least the ones I'm associated with) in the least.

Is the Eucharist the lone example of a state of reality that is neither spiritual or physical?

[JJMG2001]

[quote name='Diamond' post='991939' date='May 28 2006, 04:44 PM']
If it's a change in substance, wouldn't the change be measurable through science?

I was under the impression that the Catholic Church had of late especially supported the idea of science and Christianity being non-contradicting truths.
[/quote]
Everything has two aspects to it, its physical attributes (accidents) and what it is (substance). So for example I'm wearing an orange shirt. An accident of my shirt is its being orange. Its substance is that of a shirt. If my shirt were to be died black its accident would have changed but it's substance that of shirt would remain the same. That represents a change in accidents but no change in substance. However if I were to burn the orange shirt. It would also turn black but it would become ash. That represents a change in accidents causing a change in substance for my shirt is no longer a shirt but in fact ash. Normally when you want to change something’s substance it is necessary to change its accidents (unless of course maybe if it is used for a different purpose but I digress) but what the Catholic Church proposes is that during the consecration the substance changes into God Himself while the accidents remain the same. Since Science would only measure the accidents it wouldn't be able to notice a difference.

That said in The Eucharist Jesus is far more than spiritually present. What was once bread and wine, is in fact God. Infinity appears finite before us. Love makes love to His beloved. Those, who hunger and thirst for righteousness, are truly satisfied because Righteousness becomes food and drink for them. Power Himself in His humility becomes as food to be consumed by the weak. The miss understood are filled with Understanding. The empty are filled by the never ending. Etc. It is far more that Jesus being spiritually there.


[quote name='Diamond' post='992159' date='May 28 2006, 10:40 PM']
I think I understand a little better. Still, is there a miracle that demonstrates this idea? I have seen God do the impossible; I have not seen Him do the irrational. When he multiplied the fish the firsh were still really there. The people did not eat air and find their stomachs filled. When Jesus turned water to wine, the change was actual and physical. People did not drink a non-alcoholic, clear beverage and declare it wine. Is there a basis for this or is the Eucharis considered unique?

If the change is not physical, what is it? The miracles I know are eiher spiritual or physical. The Eucharist insists on another state of realness beyond physical and yet un-spiritual. If the change is physical; why is it not seen? Isn't something that can be measured what would be considered a physical change? If the change is spiritual, your ideas do not conflict with Protestants (at least the ones I'm associated with) in the least.

Is the Eucharist the lone example of a state of reality that is neither spiritual or physical?
[/quote]Everything has a state of being that is neither "spiritual" nor "physical." That is its substance. It is the substance which is changing. When Jesus changed the water into wine at Cana He could have merely made what was water wine without making it appear to be wine but what purpose would that have served? They wanted the wine for its accidents not its substance. Yet God becoming food has a purpose because it allows an infinite spirit to physically enter the finite.

Edited May 29, 2006 by JJMG2001

[Diamond]

Answer my last post please.

I would also like to propose a scenario. If a Godly man is taken into prison and beaten consistently, what will happen to his faith? If he is without communion for weeks, how will he stand? If communion brings this "God power" upon him, how can he recieve that apart from Communion? If Communion is really God's blood and flesh, and it must be consecrated and such to beomce so, what can the man do? And if we say that God will provide him with strength, what of Communion? You then set it equal with a purely spiritual experience.

If spiritual guidance can bring the same strength and clarity that Communion can, how can Communion be said to be physical?

I think I'm getting a little too complicated for myself. I feel certain someone will come along and tear me to shreds. Be kind.

[quote name='JJMG2001' post='992160' date='May 28 2006, 10:46 PM']
Everything has two aspects to it, its physical attributes (accidents) and what it is (substance). So for example I'm wearing an orange shirt. An accident of my shirt is its being orange. Its substance is that of a shirt. If my shirt were to be died black its accident would have changed but it's substance that of shirt would remain the same. That represents a change in accidents but no change in substance. However if I were to burn the orange shirt. It would also turn black but it would become ash. That represents a change in accidents causing a change in substance for my shirt is no longer a shirt but in fact ash. Normally when you want to change something’s substance it is necessary to change its accidents (unless of course maybe if it is used for a different purpose but I digress) but what the Catholic Church proposes is that during the consecration the substance changes into God Himself while the accidents remain the same. Since Science would only measure the accidents it wouldn't be able to notice a difference.

That said in The Eucharist Jesus is far more than spiritually present. What was once bread and wine, is in fact God. Infinity appears finite before us. Love makes love to His beloved. Those, who hunger and thirst for righteousness, are truly satisfied because Righteousness becomes food and drink for them. Power Himself in His humility becomes as food to be consumed by the weak. The miss understood are filled with Understanding. The empty are filled by the never ending. Etc. It is far more that Jesus being spiritually there.
Everything has a state of being that is neither "spiritual" nor "physical." That is its substance. It is the substance which is changing. When Jesus changed the water into wine at Cana He could have merely made what was water wine without making it appear to be wine but what purpose would that have served? They wanted the wine for its accidents not its substance. Yet God becoming food has a purpose because it allows an infinite spirit to physically enter the finite.
[/quote]

What defines a substance without its clear properties? What is wine without everything that makes it wine? This is a dangerous idea, I think. To say that water can be wine without having alcohol is to lose what we mean when we say something is water or something is wine. If water can be wine without changing at all, water is wine and wine is water. Wow... that screws with my head.

[JJMG2001]

[quote name='Diamond' post='992167' date='May 28 2006, 10:53 PM']
Answer my last post please.
[/quote]
I believe I’ve done so as well as I can
[quote name='Diamond' post='992167' date='May 28 2006, 10:53 PM']
I would also like to propose a scenario. If a Godly man is taken into prison and beaten consistently, what will happen to his faith? If he is without communion for weeks, how will he stand? If communion brings this "God power" upon him, how can he recieve that apart from Communion? If Communion is really God's blood and flesh, and it must be consecrated and such to beomce so, what can the man do? And if we say that God will provide him with strength, what of Communion? You then set it equal with a purely spiritual experience.[/quote]
God always give the strength to overcome. Communion may bring a boost to that strength and would in my mind be a different experience. However you are missing the point which I will explain next.

[quote name='Diamond' post='992167' date='May 28 2006, 10:53 PM']
If spiritual guidance can bring the same strength and clarity that Communion can, how can Communion be said to be physical?[/quote]
You are speaking of the effects of communion which it is possible to receive extraordinarily in a different manner. Yet what we are saying is when you hold What Appears to be Bread in your hand you are in fact holding God Himself. In that aspect it is physical.


[quote name='Diamond' post='992167' date='May 28 2006, 10:53 PM']
I think I'm getting a little too complicated for myself. I feel certain someone will come along and tear me to shreds. Be kind.
What defines a substance without its clear properties? What is wine without everything that makes it wine? This is a dangerous idea, I think. To say that water can be wine without having alcohol is to lose what we mean when we say something is water or something is wine. If water can be wine without changing at all, water is wine and wine is water. Wow... that screws with my head.
[/quote]
Yes it is as crazy as me holding my shirt before you and telling you that in fact it is a walnut. But if you notice that is what Christ does and we take Him on His word.

EDIT Substance is what something actually is. This is a suspention of the normal laws governing the Universe.

Edited May 29, 2006 by JJMG2001

[Diamond]

Sorry, I asked you to answer that post before I had seen your lower half of the post you made concerning the post I referred to.

I just... it's tough to convince myself, on such a difficult to interpret piece of scripture, that Jesus claimed that his body was real food and meant that the food was real, but neither physical nor spiritual. We know it's not physical. Why couldn't this be spiritual? That's the only thing that makes sense to me. I see no other example in the Bible of something "being" something else without changing at all.

So what exactly is important about it being in this sense "real"? God being there spiritually is clearly all we need to gain His strength. His spiritual prescence is totally real. What does the bread being really his body (in that sense) implicate?

EDIT: What do you mean by "really" is? Could something be really God if it were not all good and all truth? That seems to be what you're implying.

Edited May 29, 2006 by Diamond

[JJMG2001]

I thought of a good way to explain it. Take the books Animorphs. In those books people morph into the appearances of animals. Yet when Jake morphs into a dog does he really cease to be a human or does he simply look like a dog? If he were to get stuck as a dog and I knew that would it be moral for me to put him to sleep when he got old? No because he isn't actually a dog he is a human with the accidents of a dog. Maybe I just made it more confusing

[quote name='Diamond' post='992189' date='May 28 2006, 11:14 PM']
Sorry, I asked you to answer that post before I had seen your lower half of the post you made concerning the post I referred to.

I just... it's tough to convince myself, on such a difficult to interpret piece of scripture, that Jesus claimed that his body was real food and meant that the food was real, but neither physical nor spiritual. We know it's not physical. Why couldn't this be spiritual? That's the only thing that makes sense to me. I see no other example in the Bible of something "being" something else without changing at all.

So what exactly is important about it being in this sense "real"? God being there spiritually is clearly all we need to gain His strength. His spiritual prescence is totally real. What does the bread being really his body (in that sense) implicate?
[/quote]
God is spiritually present everywhere yet He is more present in the Godman Jesus. That is the difference. What make the fact that What Appears to be Bread is actually God so important is because God has become physically present before us. We worship the Eucharist as if it where God Himself so it is relevant as to whether or not it is actually bread with God's Spirit dwelling in it. Really it is the difference between Jesus and a baptized individual who is a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. Granted it could be what you say but ultimately everything comes down to authority. I choose to trust in the authority which compiled the Bible and to which Truth entrusted Himself. The Authority which most perfectly speaks for Authority.

[quote name='Diamond' post='992189' date='May 28 2006, 11:14 PM']
EDIT: What do you mean by "really" is? Could something be really God if it were not all good and all truth? That seems to be what you're implying.
[/quote]
This would be its essence. The essence of God is Truth and Goodness so no. Yet Goodness can appear to be bread.

[Diamond]

Good metaphor. I read those when I was a little younger. It was always my understanding that they retained the mind and/or spirit of a human. SOME of their characteristics changed, but they were not totally different. They were humans with the bodies of dogs. Wine would still be wine in a beer bottle.

Besides, using fantastical situations can become a tough way to argue. I've always wondered whether you could kill yourself and it wouldn't be a sin if someone made you a vampire. I've come to the conclusion that since God didn't make that situation occur in nature, it's not much of a question.