" Paschasius Radbertus was the first to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation in the ninth century. He was opposed by Ratranmus, a contemporary monk at the monastery of Corbie. Ratranmus wrote: "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi). This controversy between two Catholic monks shows that both views were present in the Catholic church at least up to the eleventh century. The debate continued until the thirteenth century when the final decision was taken by the Lateran Council in 1215.
The Doctor of the Church, Duns Scotus, admits that transubstantiation was not an article of faith before that the thirteenth century"
Is the Eucharist only symbolic.
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
No - now we're back at Square ONE.Athetotheist wrote:I should clarify my questioning.
According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops........and on "substance" and "accident"....As St. Ambrose said: "If the word of the Lord Jesus is so powerful as to bring into existence things which were not, then a fortiori those things which already exist can be changed into something else" (De Sacramentis, IV, 5-16).....and....Such terms are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of "accidents" or physical attributes--that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of "substance" or deepest reality).So if you took a piece of consecrated communion host and put it under a microscope, you would see all the "accidents" or appearances of bread---including the gluten. But if a gluten-sensitive Catholic consumed that piece of host, the individual should suffer no ill effect because the mere appearance of a thing has no power to function as the thing itself does. So the Church's allowance of low-gluten communion wafers should be unnecessary. That the Church makes that allowance arguably weakens the case for transubstantiation.Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine?
Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present--body, blood, soul, and divinity--the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present.
In the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 when Jesus was telling the crowd that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood or they would have NO life within them - they freaked out. Verse 66 tells us that many of them left that day and returned to their former way of life.
At the Last Supper, Jesus showed the Apostles the Sacramental way in which this was to be done. He NEVER intended them to start munching on His arms and legs, eating tissue and fat and veins.
HOWEVER - He also told them "This IS my Body" and "This IS my blood". He didn't say, "This represents my body" or "This is a SYMBOL of my blood."
Like any other miracle - it takes faith to acknowledge that it is indeed a miracle. I'll never convince YOU of Transubstantiation because you lack the faith to believe.
I can, however, point you to Eucharistic miracles, such as the Miracle of Lanciano (Italy), where the bread and wine actually turned into blood and a piece of the pericardium portion of a human heart. This is well-documented. It's also interesting to note that the blood type is the very SAME blood type as on the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo (facecloth), which is Type AB.
As for whether the Eucharist is merely "symbolic" - yn the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6, Jesus stated in no uncertain terms: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.�
Now, the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon�, however, this is not the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon�, which means, to munch or to gnaw - like an animal eats. Jesus was using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was not speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.
Just as the Passover Lamb was to be eaten, it is also true for the Lamb of God.
In verse 60, his disciples said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
Did Jesus explain what he "really" meant? No, he said: "Does this shock you?" He knew that some would not believe because they didn't have true faith from the Father.
Last edited by MarysSon on Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post #12
This is absolutely false.Eloi wrote: The majority of the Christendom believes Jesus is with the same fleshy body he was when he was a human. That means nobody can eat his flesh or drink his blood in any similar to real sense, because he would be feeling in heaven how people bite his flesh and drain his blood, so it is obvious to me that those words were metaphorical.
The majority of Christendom believes that Jesus ascended to the Father in His GLORIFIED Body that He received at the Resurrection. He was able to do things in His glorified body that are impossible for regular corruptible flesh like changing His appearance from people, vanishing into thin air and appearing in locked rooms under His own power.
-
Athetotheist
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3279
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 19 times
- Been thanked: 581 times
Post #13
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna892251MarysSon wrote:No - now we're back at Square ONE.
In the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 when Jesus was telling the crowd that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood or they would have NO life within them - they freaked out. Verse 66 tells us that many of them left that day and returned to their former way of life.
At the Last Supper, Jesus showed the Apostles the Sacramental way in which this was to be done. He NEVER intended them to start munching on His arms and legs, eating tissue and fat and veins.
HOWEVER - He also told them "This IS my Body" and "This IS my blood". He didn't say, "This represents my body" or "This is a SYMBOL of my blood."
Like any other miracle - it takes faith to acknowledge that it is indeed a miracle. I'll never convince YOU of Transubstantiation because you lack the faith to believe.
I can, however, point you to Eucharistic miracles, such as the Miracle of Lanciano (Italy), where the bread and wine actually turned into blood and a piece of the pericardium portion of a human heart. This is well-documented. It's also interesting to note that the blood type is the very SAME blood type as on the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo (facecloth), which is Type AB.
As for whether the Eucharist is merely "symbolic" - yn the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6, Jesus stated in no uncertain terms: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.�
Now, the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon�, however, this is not the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon�, which means, to munch or to gnaw - like an animal eats. Jesus was using hyperbole as he often did to drive his point across so that the crowd would understand that he was not speaking metaphorically. He meant what he said.
Just as the Passover Lamb was to be eaten, it is also true for the Lamb of God.
In verse 60, his disciples said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
Did Jesus explain what he "really" meant? No, he said: "Does this shock you?" He knew that some would not believe because they didn't have true faith from the Father.
https://www.quora.com/Atheists-scientis ... f-lanciano
None of this addresses the question of why gluten has to be reduced in communion bread instead of being transubstantiated into the mere appearance of gluten.
Post #14
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/ ... um-oviedo/Athetotheist wrote: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna892251
https://www.quora.com/Atheists-scientis ... f-lanciano
None of this addresses the question of why gluten has to be reduced in communion bread instead of being transubstantiated into the mere appearance of gluten.
https://historycollection.co/reasons-shroud-turin-real/
Well, we could go back and forth all day long with web articles about whether the Shroud is authentic – or a forgery. My point in bringing it up was simply to show how the blood type matches the Lanciano miracle.
As for the “article� you posted from Quora.com – this is nothing more than an OpEd piece from a person who is NOT very well-versed in either the Lanciano miracle OR Catholic theology.
The first red flag is his appeal to “cannibalism� and Transubstantiation – an ignorant charge that was leveled at the Early Church by 1st and 2nd century pagan Romans. This person doesn’t understand “Sacramental� any more than YOU do.
The second red flag is the claim that this miracle was a "one time" deal that "cannot" be authenticated. This is complete nonsense.
The dried-up blood pellets have liquified over the centuries many times. The dried flesh in the monstrance is an actual piece of the pericardium (heart tissue).
Quora.com is an extremely biased site, is notoriously Left-Wing and has an ax to grind every time a question is asked about Christianity.
Post #15
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/ ... um-oviedo/Athetotheist wrote: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna892251
https://www.quora.com/Atheists-scientis ... f-lanciano
None of this addresses the question of why gluten has to be reduced in communion bread instead of being transubstantiated into the mere appearance of gluten.
https://historycollection.co/reasons-shroud-turin-real/
Well, we could go back and forth all day long with web articles about whether the Shroud is authentic – or a forgery. My point in bringing it up was simply to show how the blood type matches the Lanciano miracle.
As for the “article� you posted from Quora.com – this is nothing more than an OpEd piece from a person who is NOT very well-versed in either the Lanciano miracle OR Catholic theology.
The first red flag is his appeal to “cannibalism� and Transubstantiation – an ignorant charge that was leveled at the Early Church by 1st and 2nd century pagan Romans. This person doesn’t understand “Sacramental� any more than YOU do.
The second red flag is the claim that this miracle was a "one time" deal that "cannot" be authenticated. This is complete nonsense.
The dried-up blood pellets have liquified over the centuries many times. The dried flesh in the monstrance is an actual piece of the pericardium (heart tissue). Quora.com is an extremely biased site, is notoriously Left-Wing and has an ax to grind every time a question is asked about Christianity.
-
Athetotheist
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3279
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 19 times
- Been thanked: 581 times
Post #17
My point was that there's nothing to corroborate that the occurrence at Lanciano was a miracle.MarysSon wrote:Well, we could go back and forth all day long with web articles about whether the Shroud is authentic – or a forgery. My point in bringing it up was simply to show how the blood type matches the Lanciano miracle.
How "well-versed" does someone have to be to make the perfectly reasonable speculation that heart tissue and blood might be procured to maintain the appearance that a miracle took place in the eighth century? And if Dr. Linoli didn't submit his findings for peer review, what does that suggest?MarysSon wrote:As for the “article� you posted from Quora.com – this is nothing more than an OpEd piece from a person who is NOT very well-versed in either the Lanciano miracle OR Catholic theology.
After calling my source "biased", you rather spoil your own effect by responding with a link to an article in the National Review.....MarysSon wrote:The first red flag is his appeal to “cannibalism� and Transubstantiation – an ignorant charge that was leveled at the Early Church by 1st and 2nd century pagan Romans. This person doesn’t understand “Sacramental� any more than YOU do.
The second red flag is the claim that this miracle was a "one time" deal that "cannot" be authenticated. This is complete nonsense.
The dried-up blood pellets have liquified over the centuries many times. The dried flesh in the monstrance is an actual piece of the pericardium (heart tissue). Quora.com is an extremely biased site, is notoriously Left-Wing and has an ax to grind every time a question is asked about Christianity.
In the other article a "red flag", as you would put it, is that the article quotes no one, whereas the article I cited includes quotes from numerous individuals involved in research on the shroud.
And still, we're not addressing the issue of why gluten isn't transubstantiated.
-
Athetotheist
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3279
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 19 times
- Been thanked: 581 times
Post #18
At the risk of raising more ire, here's another take on it [though this author is a bit more harsh than I prefer to be]:Athetotheist wrote:My point was that there's nothing to corroborate that the occurrence at Lanciano was a miracle.MarysSon wrote:Well, we could go back and forth all day long with web articles about whether the Shroud is authentic – or a forgery. My point in bringing it up was simply to show how the blood type matches the Lanciano miracle.
How "well-versed" does someone have to be to make the perfectly reasonable speculation that heart tissue and blood might be procured to maintain the appearance that a miracle took place in the eighth century? And if Dr. Linoli didn't submit his findings for peer review, what does that suggest?MarysSon wrote:As for the “article� you posted from Quora.com – this is nothing more than an OpEd piece from a person who is NOT very well-versed in either the Lanciano miracle OR Catholic theology.
After calling my source "biased", you rather spoil your own effect by responding with a link to an article in the National Review.....MarysSon wrote:The first red flag is his appeal to “cannibalism� and Transubstantiation – an ignorant charge that was leveled at the Early Church by 1st and 2nd century pagan Romans. This person doesn’t understand “Sacramental� any more than YOU do.
The second red flag is the claim that this miracle was a "one time" deal that "cannot" be authenticated. This is complete nonsense.
The dried-up blood pellets have liquified over the centuries many times. The dried flesh in the monstrance is an actual piece of the pericardium (heart tissue). Quora.com is an extremely biased site, is notoriously Left-Wing and has an ax to grind every time a question is asked about Christianity.
In the other article a "red flag", as you would put it, is that the article quotes no one, whereas the article I cited includes quotes from numerous individuals involved in research on the shroud.
And still, we're not addressing the issue of why gluten isn't transubstantiated.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.patheo ... ation/amp/
The same questions come up again, and more. Who was Linoli? Whoever he may have been, was he qualified? If the tissue was actual flesh, couldn't it have been supplied from a cadaver? Could it have been animal tissue and not human? As sketchy as the verification is, such questions don't seem unreasonable.
