Is the Eucharist only symbolic.

[polonius]

" 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"

[onewithhim]

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.

This is absolutely false.

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.

So where is God keeping this body that has been moldering for 2,000 years so that people can eat it? Wouldn't it be eaten up by now??

And I disagree with your assessment of what most members of Christendom believe about Jesus' body. Most that I have spoken to insist that he went to heaven with his old body of flesh. In fact, without exception this is true. Ask your own Catholic brethren. Then report back.


.

[onewithhim]

The central question it comes down to is this:

When communion bread containing gluten is consecrated, does the gluten become the body of Jesus along with the rest of the bread?

That's like asking of there are elements of flour in the consecrated host or if the Precious Blood has alcohol in it.
Of course they do. These accidents still exist.

If a gluten-sensitive individual consumes a communion wafer and is sickened, is the body of Jesus making the person sick?

Nope.
The accidents of gluten are making them sick.

The same is true for those who consume the Precious Blood and are allergic to alcohol.

You just shot yourself in the foot. If someone is allergic to alcohol, then he shouldn't get any negative repercussions from the wine because, according to you, that wine turns into Jesus' blood. If the alcohol is changed into blood, then there would be no bad reaction for the person who can't drink alcohol, would there?


.

[Athetotheist]

The central question it comes down to is this:

When communion bread containing gluten is consecrated, does the gluten become the body of Jesus along with the rest of the bread?

That's like asking of there are elements of flour in the consecrated host or if the Precious Blood has alcohol in it.
Of course they do. These accidents still exist.

If a gluten-sensitive individual consumes a communion wafer and is sickened, is the body of Jesus making the person sick?

Nope.
The accidents of gluten are making them sick.

The same is true for those who consume the Precious Blood and are allergic to alcohol.

But according to the bishops, the "accidents" are appearances, the bread and wine having given way and no longer being bread and wine. If the body of Jesus is the only thing left, how can the mere appearance of gluten and alcohol harm an individual? That's like saying that you can be stung by a photograph of a scorpion.

[MarysSon]

But according to the bishops, the "accidents" are appearances, the bread and wine having given way and no longer being bread and wine. If the body of Jesus is the only thing left, how can the mere appearance of gluten and alcohol harm an individual? That's like saying that you can be stung by a photograph of a scorpion.

Here is a good explanation for you about the nuances between accidents and substance from: https://ronconte.com/2012/05/30/underst ... eucharist/

Accidents and substance are not two separate things, but rather a way of dividing a thing into non-essentials and essentials, into the qualities of a thing and the thing itself. The accidents are any qualities of a thing that, if changed, do not cause the thing itself to become something else; they are non-essential. The substance is not a quality of the thing, but rather whatever is essential to the nature of the thing; it is the thing itself, apart from particular non-essential qualities. If the substance changes, the thing changes into some other type of thing. Accidents cannot exist without substance, since accidents are not the thing itself, but only qualities of the thing. Substance, in created things, does not exist without accidents; for God has ordained that created things have various changeable qualities. Only the Divine Nature is unchanging substance without accidents.

[MarysSon]

But according to the bishops, the "accidents" are appearances, the bread and wine having given way and no longer being bread and wine. If the body of Jesus is the only thing left, how can the mere appearance of gluten and alcohol harm an individual? That's like saying that you can be stung by a photograph of a scorpion.

Here is a good explanation for you about the nuances between accidents and substance from theologian, Ronald L. Conte Jr.: https://ronconte.com/2012/05/30/underst ... eucharist/

Accidents and substance are not two separate things, but rather a way of dividing a thing into non-essentials and essentials, into the qualities of a thing and the thing itself. The accidents are any qualities of a thing that, if changed, do not cause the thing itself to become something else; they are non-essential. The substance is not a quality of the thing, but rather whatever is essential to the nature of the thing; it is the thing itself, apart from particular non-essential qualities. If the substance changes, the thing changes into some other type of thing. Accidents cannot exist without substance, since accidents are not the thing itself, but only qualities of the thing. Substance, in created things, does not exist without accidents; for God has ordained that created things have various changeable qualities. Only the Divine Nature is unchanging substance without accidents.

[onewithhim]

The central question it comes down to is this:

When communion bread containing gluten is consecrated, does the gluten become the body of Jesus along with the rest of the bread?

That's like asking of there are elements of flour in the consecrated host or if the Precious Blood has alcohol in it.
Of course they do. These accidents still exist.

If a gluten-sensitive individual consumes a communion wafer and is sickened, is the body of Jesus making the person sick?

Nope.
The accidents of gluten are making them sick.

The same is true for those who consume the Precious Blood and are allergic to alcohol.

But according to the bishops, the "accidents" are appearances, the bread and wine having given way and no longer being bread and wine. If the body of Jesus is the only thing left, how can the mere appearance of gluten and alcohol harm an individual? That's like saying that you can be stung by a photograph of a scorpion.

It is clear to me that if the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, then no one who is allergic to gluten or alcohol would be assaulted with any of those ingredients. There would be no issue at all. Yet the Church has arranged for gluten-free bread?? They must not believe that the bread really changes into Christ's body. What is a sensible explanation of a person who is allergic to gluten or alcohol receiving allergic reactions from the emblems?

.

[MarysSon]

It is clear to me that if the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, then no one who is allergic to gluten or alcohol would be assaulted with any of those ingredients. There would be no issue at all. Yet the Church has arranged for gluten-free bread?? They must not believe that the bread really changes into Christ's body. What is a sensible explanation of a person who is allergic to gluten or alcohol receiving allergic reactions from the emblems?

.

And it's BLINDINGLY clear that you didn't read post #34 - or you wouldn't be making such a statement.

[Eloi]

[Replying to MarysSon]

I think it is you the one who didn't read other's posts. If you did, then you are contradicting yourself: the bread is Jesus flesh or not? If it is, then it is not supposed than anybody could be sick for eating that ... same with the wine. So you got a big contradiction yourself. You cann't teach contradictions that put in danger rational thinking. This is not a place to sermon people.

[Athetotheist]

The central question it comes down to is this:

When communion bread containing gluten is consecrated, does the gluten become the body of Jesus along with the rest of the bread?

That's like asking of there are elements of flour in the consecrated host or if the Precious Blood has alcohol in it.
Of course they do. These accidents still exist.

If a gluten-sensitive individual consumes a communion wafer and is sickened, is the body of Jesus making the person sick?

Nope.
The accidents of gluten are making them sick.

The same is true for those who consume the Precious Blood and are allergic to alcohol.

But according to the bishops, the "accidents" are appearances, the bread and wine having given way and no longer being bread and wine. If the body of Jesus is the only thing left, how can the mere appearance of gluten and alcohol harm an individual? That's like saying that you can be stung by a photograph of a scorpion.

It is clear to me that if the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, then no one who is allergic to gluten or alcohol would be assaulted with any of those ingredients. There would be no issue at all. Yet the Church has arranged for gluten-free bread??

As far as I know, the CC still refuses to use gluten-free bread, only low-gluten----even if gluten-sensitive individuals can't tolerate even that.

[MarysSon]

I think it is you the one who didn't read other's posts. If you did, then you are contradicting yourself: the bread is Jesus flesh or not? If it is, then it is not supposed than anybody could be sick for eating that ... same with the wine. So you got a big contradiction yourself. You cann't teach contradictions that put in danger rational thinking. This is not a place to sermon people.

Hmmmmmm, you're STILL not reading the post - so here it is again:

This is an explanation of the differences between accidents and substance from theologian, Ronald L. Conte Jr.: https://ronconte.com/2012/05/30/underst ... eucharist/

Accidents and substance are not two separate things, but rather a way of dividing a thing into non-essentials and essentials, into the qualities of a thing and the thing itself. The accidents are any qualities of a thing that, if changed, do not cause the thing itself to become something else; they are non-essential.
The substance is not a quality of the thing, but rather whatever is essential to the nature of the thing; it is the thing itself, apart from particular non-essential qualities. If the substance changes, the thing changes into some other type of thing. Accidents cannot exist without substance, since accidents are not the thing itself, but only qualities of the thing. Substance, in created things, does not exist without accidents; for God has ordained that created things have various changeable qualities. Only the Divine Nature is unchanging substance without accidents.