Found in blogosphere:
"A good example of this irrational block is a discussion of transubstantiation. A Protestant who is ignorant of the teaching might think Catholics believe that the bread and wine are transformed physically into human flesh and blood."
Anyone want to venture a guess as to what Father thinks is irrational about that?
I wonder what he is explaining as happening?
15 comments:
excuse me, but the Church teaches while the bread and wine become the True (and thus physical) Body and Blood of Christ, the bread retains the physical properties of bread and the wine retains the physical properties of wine that which is discernible to the senses: sight, smell, touch, etc is unchanged and the scientific analysis of the Eucharistic Body and Blood would show, according to Saint Thomas, the physical characteristics of bread and wine.
Excuse me, but I don't have the bandwidth to excuse you. Not when it comes to this topic. There is no excuse for the splitting of hairs to leave the impression it isn't happening.with a parentheses around the words THUS PHYSICAL.
The facts are, the physical properties DO change into the Body and Blood of Christ. This is precisely what Transubstantiation is. We are not imagini g or thinking about something that isn't actually happening.
You had better check what Church teaches on this subject and has always taught. Your definition of Transubstantiation contradicts not only Saint Thomas, but the Council of Trent. Go ask your parish priest, that is if your priest is orthodox. But from your blog, you obviously know very little about what the Church has officially taught as opposed to what Sister Mary Christmas taught you in her pious meanderings in the second grade
"It's very clear what the Roman Catholic Church is saying. The elements actually become on every level (including the physical) the body and blood of Jesus Christ."
The idea that St. Thomas did not believe Christ's Body and Blood is not physically present in the Eucharist is an urban legend that may find traction at Patheos but it doesn't fly in forums where well-forms Catholics hang out.
There is no way that I said that the bread and wine do not become the Real Physical Body and the Blood of the Risen Christ, but I am saying--as the Church teaches--that the physical properties, i.e. the accidents of the bread and wine remain bread and wine. Physical properties are not the substance and should the Eucharistic Elements be examined scientifically that which the scientist can perceive--the atomic or chemical structures remain bread and wine. Exaggeration of Church teaching is not helpful in teaching, preserving, or spreading the faith
further thought--maybe the reason that your children and grandchidren friends and family have given up on our faith is not Pope Francis but your presenting a distorted version of what we FAITHFUL Catholic hold
If it is one think I can't stomach, it is intellectual dishonesty.
Why can't you just admit that Fr.Longenecker's words are poorly chosen and the result is beneath the dignity of what happens during Transubstatiation ?
Instead of honesty, you go on a wild frenzy of contortions to imply there are people so stupid and ignorant as to not know the miracle doesn't appear to the senses as human blood or Christ's human body doesn't manifest to the senses on the Altar.
Who are you kidding?
Not me brother. And you are finished here wasting my time.
Everyone knows the change is literal and physical.
I never met a single Protestant, even a imbecile, who thought Catholics are hallucinating about Christ's Physical Body on the Altar. The problem is a figment of your wild imagination which apparently overcompensates for your low self esteem through foolish arguments defending inane statements on the Internet.
Get a life
reread the dialogue and you will see the only inane statements are yours
Well, coming from a man who opines that somewhere on the world of whacky, there are people who think Catholics believe We hallucinate and actually see Christ's Body on the Altar during Transubstatiation and so Fr Longenecker should publish a response that says Christ is not physically present after Transubstatiation, you will not find any readers here who see what you see.
You can't own up to the truth. Fr Longenecker's Protestants are a Fata Morgana and telling a Protestant Christ is not physically present after Transubstatiation is only going to cause more confusion. He is present. And we don't just "believe" this, we know with 100 percent certainty that it actually happens.
Defending dumb things said about the Eucharist does not fly at TTC.
Carole,
Your comments to Consolamini made my day.
He authors a website that tells Church history that the Holy See and 2000 years of official Church historians never knew. He learned it from discussions in the men's room at Harvard University. In a recent post, he explained three ways to form convictions on morals. The conclusion was everyone lives in a society where they devise their own moral theology and that becomes truth for them.
I am guessing the poor slob had more than a few classes with Bryan Hehir.
Consolamini,
How would you interpret the various Eucharistic Miracles in Church history, where under scientific analysis, the Eucharistic Body and Blood showed the physical characteristics of human flesh and blood? Either these are unique occurrences in which the physical properties of bread and wine are changed (and thus these miracles would represent some miracle greater than transubstantiation and can not be seen as representative of what normally happens in Catholic Masses, contrary to how these Eucharistic Miracles are often marketed) or this would indicate that the “accidents” of bread and wine lack concrete physicality and are present, as it were, as a “veil,” for the benefit and ease of the Catholic faithful in their receiving of Holy Communion.
TTC,
I admire your blog and you are correct to point out the dangers of Pope Francis to the Catholic faithful. Personally, I cannot see how the man could inspire the ancient faith in anyone. However, Consolamini is correct when he points out that the official definition of transubstantiation denies the change of the physical properties. Consider these words from Fr. John Hardon:
“Normally we speak of the substance of anything as that which makes a thing what it is. With transubstantiation, however, the substance of bread and wine becomes everything which Christ is. After transub-stantiation, the physical properties of bread and wine remain. But the "itness" or "thingness" of bread and wine ceases to exist. What had been the substance of bread and wine now becomes the whole Christ, in the words of the Council of Trent, the totus Christus”
- http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_023.htm
However, like I posted to Consolamini, the presence of Eucharistic Miracles presents an interesting situation for Catholics. Either the physical properties do not change and Eucharistic Miracles represent miracles greater than transubstantiation or the “accidents” of bread and wine do not have the concreteness of true “physical properties” and may thus be dispensed with as God wills. In my opinion, you are on good ground in believing that there is a complete change of even the physical properties, even if this is not the conventional interpretation of transubstantiation.
(Btw, please don’t worry about the pious meanderings of Sr. Mary Christmas. I’m sure, whomever she was, that she was a true Catholic sister, trained and working under a Pope who never hesitated to call non-Catholics back to the Catholic Church. Frankly, this is a rare commodity today.)
Post a Comment