Starting a thread on the Lord's Supper for Catholics to read...

[BJ Bear]

The ethyl alcohol is not the substance. Nowadays we call it the substance because we are materialists. But in the middle ages and at the Council of Trent in the 1500s, they meant substance as what lies underneath (sub-stance). They used the language of Aristotle.
For example, a house can be made out of bricks. The house is the substance. The substance is the answer to the question, "What is it?" Answer: a house. It has the form of a house. It functions as a house. It has the properties of a house. And what material is this particular house made out of? In this case, bricks. The bricks are simply the "material out of which the thing is made."
For wine, the ethyl alcohol (and water and other physical and chemical components) is the material out of which it is made. But what form is this liquid filling out? What is the substance? In a word, what is it? It is wine.
You get drunk from the consecrated wine because the ethyl alcohol remains the same. It is simply the material. But what it is has changed.

Imposing Aristotle, his thought and words, upon Scripture is an error. On top of everything else, it introduced a tertium quid, a third thing, into the Supper.

We also know from Scripture that it is an erroe because nowhere did the Lord tell His disciples anything like, "I know some of you guys are fishermen, some of you are unlettered, and all of you are basically ordinary Joes, but if in the future you find my words regarding the Supper to be inadequate then turn to an ancient pagan philosopher who can explain them better than I."

We also know it is an error from Scripture because nowhere does it state or imply that the disciples later considered the Lord's words to be inadequate and then turn to the thoughts and words of an ancient pagan philosopher for a better explanation.

In the same way, we know from history that the early Gentile converts of whom we have some writings, and who also previously wore the philosopher's robe, did not find the Lord's words regarding the Supper inadequate and consequently turn to an ancient pagan philosopher for a better explanation.

It wasn't until the thirteenth century that Aristotle's thoughts and words gained some currency through a misguided Pope, Aquinas, and others. In the sixteenth century at Trent they were anathematizing those who did not affirm their misguided and unnecessary novelty.

For basically the same reasons consubstantiation is also excluded. The disingenuous propagandists who assert it as a teaching of the Evangelical or Lutheran church are piling error upon error.

 

[Bonnie]

Thanks, BJ. I would say that partaking of the Lord's Supper is not a requirement for salvation; however, no one should despise this means of grace, which is Jesus' gift to us, as is Baptism. No where does Scripture declare that we must partake, to be saved. But it IS a gift, one we should joyfully accept from our Lord.

 

[BJ Bear]

Thanks, BJ.

You're welcome. I was thinking of brother Josiah as I posted it.

I would say that partaking of the Lord's Supper is not a requirement for salvation; however, no one should despise this means of grace, which is Jesus' gift to us, as is Baptism. No where does Scripture declare that we must partake, to be saved. But it IS a gift, one we should joyfully accept from our Lord.

The way that people express their understanding of the gifts of baptism and the Lord's Supper tells us so much about their Christology and theology in general. The fact that Jesus saves sinners is not a reason or license to despise, disregard, or deny His word in this regard.

Alleluia!

 

[Merton]

Imposing Aristotle, his thought and words, upon Scripture is an error. On top of everything else, it introduced a tertium quid, a third thing, into the Supper.

We also know from Scripture that it is an erroe because nowhere did the Lord tell His disciples anything like, "I know some of you guys are fishermen, some of you are unlettered, and all of you are basically ordinary Joes, but if in the future you find my words regarding the Supper to be inadequate then turn to an ancient pagan philosopher who can explain them better than I."

We also know it is an error from Scripture because nowhere does it state or imply that the disciples later considered the Lord's words to be inadequate and then turn to the thoughts and words of an ancient pagan philosopher for a better explanation.

In the same way, we know from history that the early Gentile converts of whom we have some writings, and who also previously wore the philosopher's robe, did not find the Lord's words regarding the Supper inadequate and consequently turn to an ancient pagan philosopher for a better explanation.

It wasn't until the thirteenth century that Aristotle's thoughts and words gained some currency through a misguided Pope, Aquinas, and others. In the sixteenth century at Trent they were anathematizing those who did not affirm their misguided and unnecessary novelty.

For basically the same reasons consubstantiation is also excluded. The disingenuous propagandists who assert it as a teaching of the Evangelical or Lutheran church are piling error upon error.

The fishermen certainly knew the answer to, "What is this?"
They knew it was a boat. That was made out of wood. Or a fishing net that was made out of rope.
So when Jesus told them, "This is my body," they knew the answer to the question: "What is this?"

You don't need to know that philosophers or theologians used the word "substance" for the answer to the question, "What is this?"
In intro to Aristotle, you learn that the answer to "What is this?" is the substance, and the answer to, "What is this made out of" is the material.
There is no requirement to know the word "substance" or "material" or be aware of atoms. You just need to know "what it is."

 

[Merton]

Thanks, BJ. I would say that partaking of the Lord's Supper is not a requirement for salvation; however, no one should despise this means of grace, which is Jesus' gift to us, as is Baptism. No where does Scripture declare that we must partake, to be saved. But it IS a gift, one we should joyfully accept from our Lord.

I agree you don't need to partake to be saved. It is food given to the saved. You need to be alive to eat food, so as to grow. Same goes for spiritual food.

 

[BJ Bear]

The fishermen certainly knew the answer to, "What is this?"
They knew it was a boat. That was made out of wood. Or a fishing net that was made out of rope.
So when Jesus told them, "This is my body," they knew the answer to the question: "What is this?"

You don't need to know that philosophers or theologians used the word "substance" for the answer to the question, "What is this?"
In intro to Aristotle, you learn that the answer to "What is this?" is the substance, and the answer to, "What is this made out of" is the material.
There is no requirement to know the word "substance" or "material" or be aware of atoms. You just need to know "what it is."

Yes, the fishermen and the other disciples knew that the bread and the wine were Christ's body and blood. However, it is only through the later foolishness of applying Aristotle to the Supper that some came to say there was no longer bread and wine. This action also consequently introduced a third thing which had never existed into the supper.

The asserters of Aristotle came to anathematize at Trent those before them, contemporary to them, and after them in the church who substantively said something similar to what you claim in your definition of substance, namely, they used prepositions singularly or in combination like in, with, and under.

Think of the foolish errors that would result if Aristotle were to be applied to the revelation of the person of Christ. Oh, wait. Did that already happen?

 

[Merton]

This action also consequently introduced a third thing which had never existed into the supper.

What is the third thing?

 

[BJ Bear]

The thing which the Roman Catholics claim exists apart from it's unessential marks.

If a thing could exist apart from it's unessential marks then the prepositions used historically by the church would not have been anathematized at Trent.

 

[Merton]

The thing which the Roman Catholics claim exists apart from it's unessential marks.

If a thing could exist apart from it's unessential marks then the prepositions used historically by the church would not have been anathematized at Trent.

I know of only two "things": bread and body, or wine and blood.
The traditional way of saying it was that it was the body of Christ "under the appearance" (sub specie) of bread. The belief was that there was a change. The bread is no longer bread, but has become the body of Christ...however much it still appears to be bread.
"Trans-substantiation" makes no change to the teaching. It simply gives it a word - a trans (change from one thing to another) of what it is (the substance).

Bread has not been joined to Jesus' body to become a union of bread and body. Instead, the bread is changed into body.

How Plato would have understood that, or how Aristotle would have understood that, or how a modern materialist would understand that (are the atoms changed?)...is really up to the individual. You are free to speculate. All the details are not defined. What is defined is that what it is has changed - no longer bread but body, no longer wine but blood - even though the appearance remains the same (and is symbolic of the spiritual food that it is)

 

[BJ Bear]

."Trans-substantiation" makes no change to the teaching. It simply gives it a word - a trans (change from one thing to another) of what it is (the substance).

That is demonstrably false because if it made no difference to the teaching then Trent would not have anathematized those who continued the tradition of the church by using the prepositions in this regard.

Btw, it might be my poor vision but if you were quoting something then I didn't see a close or a source.

 

[Merton]

That is demonstrably false because if it made no difference to the teaching then Trent would not have anathematized those who continued the tradition of the church by using the prepositions in this regard.

Btw, it might be my poor vision but if you were quoting something then I didn't see a close or a source.

OK here is the background explanation given at the Council of Trent.

CHAPTER IV
TRANSUBSTANTIATION

But since Christ our Redeemer declared that to be truly His own body which He offered under the form of bread, it has, therefore, always been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy council now declares it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about 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 properly and appropriately calls transubstantiation.

And here are the dogmatic parts of the Council of Trent. When I said that 'what it is' as blood lies under the material of the physical wine, (and I can find the quote for that from Cardinal Ratzinger, who was head of the Office of Catholic Doctrine when he said that and became the recently deceased Pope Benedict, if you'd like) I can use the preposition "under" because I am not denying the change of substance (the change from 'what it is' as wine into a new 'what it is' as blood). So you can use prepositions so long as you are saying that 'what it is' (the substance) is changed, not in part but completely :

Canon 1. If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says that in the sacred and, holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

Can you show me a preposition written by an Early Church Father that would run counter to this? I don't think I've ever seen one, though this is not an area that I have researched fully, so I'd be interested.

 

[BJ Bear]

OK here is the background explanation given at the Council of Trent.

CHAPTER IV
TRANSUBSTANTIATION

But since Christ our Redeemer declared that to be truly His own body which He offered under the form of bread, it has, therefore, always been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy council now declares it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about 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 properly and appropriately calls transubstantiation.

<Click on the expand button above to see the focus of the response.>

That is the assertion but it is demonstrably false. The only way for it to be true is for the person making the claim to deliberately exclude Christ, the Apostles, and the penmen of Scripture from the church that makes the claim, or deny that Scripture is authoritative word of God.

Paul, an early post passion penman of Scripture, in accordance to what he was taught by Christ and the contemporary custom of the church asked and answered for the Corinthians, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” (1Cor 10:16-17, KJVA)

There was no controversy or correction of Paul's words by those who later penned Scripture.

Two things to focus on which are decisive are the verbs and what is translated into English as communion. Paul is not writing of the bread and wine prior to the blessing and communion and transubstantiation are not synonyms.

And here are the dogmatic parts of the Council of Trent. When I said that 'what it is' as blood lies under the material of the physical wine, (and I can find the quote for that from Cardinal Ratzinger, who was head of the Office of Catholic Doctrine when he said that and became the recently deceased Pope Benedict, if you'd like) I can use the preposition "under" because I am not denying the change of substance (the change from 'what it is' as wine into a new 'what it is' as blood). So you can use prepositions so long as you are saying that 'what it is' (the substance) is changed, not in part but completely :

Canon 1. If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.

The word "contained" above is consistent with the novelty of thinking of the Supper in Aristotelian terms.

Canon 2. If anyone says that in the sacred and, holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

That is further reasoning regarding the Supper in Aristotelian terms. Off the top of my head, I don't know of another church beside the Roman Catholic Church which does that.

Can you show me a preposition written by an Early Church Father that would run counter to this? I don't think I've ever seen one, though this is not an area that I have researched fully, so I'd be interested.

That short answer is they all are counter to the claim at Trent. However, that would be difficult to demonstrate or prove to the satisfaction of a person who thinks that communion and transubstantiation are synonyms, and who also thinks that the Christian revelation and pagan philosophy have the same source and goal.

Peace.