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"

[Athetotheist]

When the Catholic Church declares the reality of transubstantiation, it runs into a problem: the undeniable reality of celiac disease, an allergic reaction to the gluten in communion bread, which the CC insists must be made of wheat. The CC has officially allowed the production of low-gluten communion wafers, but the problem here is that it shouldn't have to; transubstantiation itself should remove whatever gluten is in the bread, because the bread is supposed to become the literal, physical body of Jesus.

The CC tries to get around this difficulty by claiming that the gluten in the bread isn't transubstantiated because it's just an "accidental" substance. This, however, undermines the Church's insistence that its communion bread must be made of wheat and that gluten must be present for it to qualify as wheat bread (Jesus used wheat bread with gluten to initate the Eucharist at the Last Supper, so the Church has to do the same).

The first law of existence states that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Therefore, gluten cannot simultaneously be a necessary part of the substance of wheat bread and merely an "accidental" substance in wheat bread. It takes an exercise in cognitive dissonance to reconcile those declarations.

[MarysSon]

" 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"

Nonsense.

Although the term "Transubstantiation" wasn't always used - the belief in this doctrine goes ALL the way back to the Apostles themselves. We see this in Paul's writings:

In 1 Cor. 11:27-30, Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.�

This is pretty harsh language for something that Protestants claim is only a "symbol".

This directly correlates to the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6, where 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.�

The FIRST century Bishop, Ignatius of Antioch was a student of the Apostle John. On his way to be martyred in Rome, he wrote SEVEN Letters. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he wrote about the reality of the Real Presence in the Eucharist:

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).

This was written while the Apostle John was presumably STILL alive.

YOUR turn . . .

[MarysSon]

When the Catholic Church declares the reality of transubstantiation, it runs into a problem: the undeniable reality of celiac disease, an allergic reaction to the gluten in communion bread, which the CC insists must be made of wheat. The CC has officially allowed the production of low-gluten communion wafers, but the problem here is that it shouldn't have to; transubstantiation itself should remove whatever gluten is in the bread, because the bread is supposed to become the literal, physical body of Jesus.

The CC tries to get around this difficulty by claiming that the gluten in the bread isn't transubstantiated because it's just an "accidental" substance. This, however, undermines the Church's insistence that its communion bread must be made of wheat and that gluten must be present for it to qualify as wheat bread (Jesus used wheat bread with gluten to initate the Eucharist at the Last Supper, so the Church has to do the same).

The first law of existence states that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Therefore, gluten cannot simultaneously be a necessary part of the substance of wheat bread and merely an "accidental" substance in wheat bread. It takes an exercise in cognitive dissonance to reconcile those declarations.

Wrong.

The doctrine of Transubstatiation does not insist that we are eating tissue, fat and veins. It states that we consume the Lord in a SACRAMENTAL manner.
The appearances/accidents of bread and wine still exist - but the substance has changed.

It's not a matter of "cognitive dissonance" - it's a matter of faith.

[Athetotheist]

The doctrine of Transubstatiation does not insist that we are eating tissue, fat and veins. It states that we consume the Lord in a SACRAMENTAL manner.

Does that mean not doing so in a literal manner?

The appearances/accidents of bread and wine still exist - but the substance has changed.

If care still has to be taken for gluten-sensitive individuals, then it isn't only the appearances which stay the same but also the functions of the appearances. Why does any gluten have to be left in if gluten is only an accidental?

It's not a matter of "cognitive dissonance" - it's a matter of faith.

So is snake handling.

[MarysSon]

Does that mean not doing so in a literal manner?

Not sure what you mean.

If care still has to be taken for gluten-sensitive individuals, then it isn't only the appearances which stay the same but also the functions of the appearances. Why does any gluten have to be left in if gluten is only an accidental?

Not sure what you mean.

If you have a pile of gluten and the substance has changed but not the appearance - why would you expect anything else? Do you actually expect a hunk of flesh?

I explained to you that this was Sacramental - not literal.

So is snake handling.

Snake handling is also a gross misrepresentation of Scripture . . .

[otseng]

Nonsense.

Wrong.

Moderator Comment

Welcome to the forum. The most important principle on this forum is civility. Your dismissive comments are unnecessary and uncordial. You are free to present your case and arguments, but please do it in a respectful way.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Eloi]

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.

[Athetotheist]

Does that mean not doing so in a literal manner?

Not sure what you mean.

If care still has to be taken for gluten-sensitive individuals, then it isn't only the appearances which stay the same but also the functions of the appearances. Why does any gluten have to be left in if gluten is only an accidental?

Not sure what you mean.

If you have a pile of gluten and the substance has changed but not the appearance - why would you expect anything else? Do you actually expect a hunk of flesh?

I explained to you that this was Sacramental - not literal.

So is snake handling.

Snake handling is also a gross misrepresentation of Scripture . . .

I should clarify my questioning.

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops....

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 on "substance" and "accident"....

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).

....and....

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.

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.

[brianbbs67]

Everyone's posts here have convinced me even more it is a metaphor and the ending of Mark should be at 16:8.