Let's talk about transubstantiation.

[Jason_J]

How prevalent is the belief that it literally turns to blood at some point when partaking the of the sacrament/communion?

All of the most ancient traditional Christian churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, etc) believe in what is called the "Real Presence". Some Protestant churches also believe in it as well (Anglican and Lutheran churches).

Whether individuals actually believe what these churches officially teach is a different story of course.

[Blackmarch]

What do you mean, how many Catholics actually believe it?

sorry poorly worded lemme try again. At what point is it bleieved to turn to blood? Or is it beieved to be a spiritual transformation only rather than a literal one?

It is important to symbolise fasting.

interesting. Is theis how the Catechism expounds this (it's not the first connection that I get when I study the portions of the bible when it's talking about leaven)

[Jason_J]

sorry poorly worded lemme try again. At what point is it bleieved to turn to blood? Or is it beieved to be a spiritual transformation only rather than a literal one?

It is believed to be an actual, literal transformation. It is believed that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, while maintaining their appearance. In the West, it is traditionally believed that this transformation occurs when the priest says the "Words of Institution" ("Take this all of you and eat it, this is my body..."). In the East, there is no tradition as to a specific moment when the transformation occurs, though it is commonly said that after the Epiclesis (a prayer of invocation of the Holy Spirit), the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

[Blackmarch]

Thanks Jason.

What does the "real Pressence" mean?

[Jason_J]

Thanks Jason.

What does the "real Pressence" mean?

Real Presence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It means that Jesus is "really" present in what appears to be bread and wine. In contrast to a purely symbolic view, or a spiritual presence, it is believed that Jesus is actually fully present there. His body and blood are actually present, and those partaking of the Eucharist believe (or should believe) that they are partaking in the actual body and the actual blood of Christ.

[Dominic_Korozya]

Right, however the host is not used in most Eastern churches. My point is simply that unleavened vs. leavened bread is not an issue, since the Catholic Church uses both types of bread in its Eastern and Western churches, and has done so since ancient times.

This is why we use unleavened bread;

In the Catholic Church, unleavened bread is used in remembrance of the hast of the Jews when they fled Egypt. It is in remembrance of the manna God gave us in the desert. Therefore in the celebration of the passover the Jews used unleavened bread.

In communion we are celebrating the final sacrifice and the fulfillment of that passover. When the mass is said it is celebrating the passover that Christ fulfilled finally.

The Catholic Church should always use unleavened bread. It is not because of transubstantiation that unleavened bread is used, it is because of what we are celebrating.

The Orthodox Church also does so, and the Catholic Church of course recognizes the validity of all its sacraments.

If they are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

[Dominic_Korozya]

sorry poorly worded lemme try again. At what point is it bleieved to turn to blood? Or is it beieved to be a spiritual transformation only rather than a literal one?

The priest does this shortly after the homily. He will do it clearly in your view. You will hear his words.

interesting. Is theis how the Catechism expounds this (it's not the first connection that I get when I study the portions of the bible when it's talking about leaven)

The manna and the passover was unleavened.

Are you suggesting that Catholicism contradicts the bible?

[Jason_J]

This is why we use unleavened bread;

In the Catholic Church, unleavened bread is used in remembrance of the hast of the Jews when they fled Egypt. It is in remembrance of the manna God gave us in the desert. Therefore in the celebration of the passover the Jews used unleavened bread.

In communion we are celebrating the final sacrifice and the fulfillment of that passover. When the mass is said it is celebrating the passover that Christ fulfilled finally.

The Catholic Church should always use unleavened bread. It is not because of transubstantiation that unleavened bread is used, it is because of what we are celebrating.

This is still incorrect. Whether or not you believe that the Catholic Church should use unleavened bread only does not detract from the fact that the Catholic Church uses both leavened and unleavened bread, and has done so throughout its history. The West does have certain reasons for using unleavened bread (as you note), however those reasons are not shared by the East, including most of those Eastern churches in full communion with Rome. I am aware of no bishop, let alone Pope, that has stated that the East needs to change to using unleavened bread. In fact, the Pope has been quite vocal on saying that the Eastern Catholic churches must maintain their Eastern traditions, and avoid "Latinizations" (which includes the use of unleavened bread, since it was never used in the East).

If they are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Church (not in communion with Rome) has valid sacraments, and that they are allowed to partake in the Eucharist at a Catholic parish.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."

[personne]

Hey I'm afraid to answer this thread .. Tough question .. I fear opinions of others.

[Dominic_Korozya]

This is still incorrect. Whether or not you believe that the Catholic Church should use unleavened bread only does not detract from the fact that the Catholic Church uses both leavened and unleavened bread, and has done so throughout its history. The West does have certain reasons for using unleavened bread (as you note), however those reasons are not shared by the East, including most of those Eastern churches in full communion with Rome. I am aware of no bishop, let alone Pope, that has stated that the East needs to change to using unleavened bread. In fact, the Pope has been quite vocal on saying that the Eastern Catholic churches must maintain their Eastern traditions, and avoid "Latinizations" (which includes the use of unleavened bread, since it was never used in the East).

I said that the Eucharist *should* be unleavened. I never said it was a requirement.

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Church (not in communion with Rome) has valid sacraments, and that they are allowed to partake in the Eucharist at a Catholic parish.

Within certain conditions.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."

Anyone who takes part in communion unworthily will eat their way to damnation. A Catholic priest may also give the host to a visiting protestant.

The Orthodox Church also does so, and the Catholic Church of course recognizes the validity of all its sacraments.

The orthodox church does not believe in the transformation of the Eucharist. They are not consuming the body of christ nor do they themselves believe that they are.

[Dominic_Korozya]

Hey I'm afraid to answer this thread .. Tough question .. I fear opinions of others.

Say whatever you please, fear not the remarks of others.

[personne]

Every Eucharistic celebration sacramentally presents the gift that Jesus has made his life on the cross for us and the world. At the same time, in the Eucharist Jesus also makes us witnesses of God's compassion for all our brothers and sisters. The eucharistic mystery thus gives rise to the service of charity vis-à-vis the next, which "consists in the fact that I love, in God and with God, who I do not like, or I do even know.This can be achieved only from an intimate encounter with God, an encounter which has become a communion of will, even affecting my feelings. Then I learn to look at this other person not simply with my eyes and my feelings, but from the perspective of Jesus Chris

Edited April 6, 2010 by personne

[Jason_J]

Anyone who takes part in communion unworthily will eat their way to damnation. A Catholic priest may also give the host to a visiting protestant.

No he may not (I'm talking about people that the priest knows are Eastern Orthodox, not random people going up that he knows nothing about). A Catholic priest is forbidden to give the Eucharist to someone that they know is a Protestant, unless they are in grave circumstances (i.e. imminent death) They are allowed to licitly give the sacraments to members of the Orthodox Church, according to the Code of Canon Law:

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

Therefore, according to Canon Law, a Catholic priest can lawfully give the sacraments to members of the Orthodox Church if they approach the priest and are properly disposed (i.e. they are not in a state of mortal sin). In contrast, Protestants are only allowed to receive Catholic sacraments if they are in danger of death or other grave necessity and do not have access to their own ministers at that point.

Also, please read this page from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

USCCB - (Liturgy) - Non-Catholics and Holy Communion

The orthodox church does not believe in the transformation of the Eucharist. They are not consuming the body of christ nor do they themselves believe that they are.

Uh what? This is completely untrue. The Orthodox Church maintains a belief in the Real Presence, and that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. From the Orthodox Wiki:

Orthodox Christians believe that the Real Presence of God (not merely a sign) is present after the consecration of the Gifts. Roman Catholics and some protestants also hold this view.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states, the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, priesthood, and valid sacraments, and therefore, from the official perspective of the Catholic Church, they are consuming the body and blood of Christ (the Catechism paragraph linked to specifically mentions the Eucharist in Orthodoxy as a "true sacrament").

[Dominic_Korozya]

No he may not (I'm talking about people that the priest knows are Eastern Orthodox, not random people going up that he knows nothing about). A Catholic priest is forbidden to give the Eucharist to someone that they know is a Protestant, unless they are in grave circumstances (i.e. imminent death) They are allowed to licitly give the sacraments to members of the Orthodox Church, according to the Code of Canon Law:

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

Therefore, according to Canon Law, a Catholic priest can lawfully give the sacraments to members of the Orthodox Church if they approach the priest and are properly disposed (i.e. they are not in a state of mortal sin). In contrast, Protestants are only allowed to receive Catholic sacraments if they are in danger of death or other grave necessity and do not have access to their own ministers at that point.

Also, please read this page from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

USCCB - (Liturgy) - Non-Catholics and Holy Communion

Catholic priest are not suppose to, but yes, they do. They will give it to those whom they are worried about. It's not uncommon. Communion can be given instantly to anyone, if there is concern for that person, and this does not have to be death. The point is this, even if someone does not believe in the transformation of the Eucharist, it can be given to them anyway such as with the people of the orthodox church.

Uh what? This is completely untrue. The Orthodox Church maintains a belief in the Real Presence, and that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. From the Orthodox Wiki:

Orthodox Christians believe that the Real Presence of God (not merely a sign) is present after the consecration of the Gifts. Roman Catholics and some protestants also hold this view.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states, the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, priesthood, and valid sacraments, and therefore, from the official perspective of the Catholic Church, they are consuming the body and blood of Christ (the Catechism paragraph linked to specifically mentions the Eucharist in Orthodoxy as a "true sacrament"

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information.

The orthodox church themselves do not believe that they are consuming the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.

[Dominic_Korozya]

from the official perspective of the Catholic Church, they are consuming the body and blood of Christ

But not from the perspective of the orthodox church.

[Connie]

Can someone please explain why the vinegar given Christ on the cross is considered the fourth cup? And why the seder meal is believed to support transubstantiation?

[Jason_J]

Catholic priest are not suppose to, but yes, they do. They will give it to those whom they are worried about. It's not uncommon. Communion can be given instantly to anyone, if there is concern for that person, and this does not have to be death. The point is this, even if someone does not believe in the transformation of the Eucharist, it can be given to them anyway such as with the people of the orthodox church.

This isn't what I'm talking about. According to the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, cited above, Catholic priests are allowed to lawfully give the Eucharist to members of the Orthodox Church that are properly disposed (i.e. not in mortal sin). In contrast, they are only allowed to give the Eucharist to Protestants if they are in danger of death or other grave necessity, and have no access to their own ministers. That is what I'm talking about.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information.

And I did not quote from Wikipedia. I quoted from the Orthodox Wiki, which is not Wikipedia.

The orthodox church themselves do not believe that they are consuming the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.

This is completely false, and makes the Catholic Church seem as if it doesn't know what it's talking about. Why would the Catholic Church say in the Catechism that the Orthodox have valid Eucharist, apostolic succession, and priesthood, if they didn't actually believe in the Real Presence? It's illogical. Furthermore, here is what Orthodox themselves say about the Eucharist:

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America

"Orthodoxy has clearly avoided reducing the Eucharist to a simple memorial of the Last Supper which is only occasionally observed. Following the teachings of both Scripture and Tradition, the Orthodox Church believes that Christ is truly present with His people in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine become for us His Body and His Blood."

Orthodox Church in America

Holy Communion is the "sacrament of sacraments" in that it is the banquet of the Kingdom of God, the fulfillment of every other sacrament. In Holy Communion we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Eternal Passover Lamb, Who makes us alive and holy with Himself. Through Holy Communion we become sons of God the Father, together with Jesus, filled with the "communion of the Holy Spirit."

St John the Baptist Russian Orthodox Cathedral

The Holy Fathers of the Church teach that the members of the Church comprise the Church - the Body of Christ - because in the Eucharist they partake of the Body and the Blood of Christ.

Antiochian Christian Archdiocese of North America

We believe that only a priest who has been given the authority by the Church through Christ can administer those sacraments. Only a priest and a bishop have the function and the authority to consecrate the elements of bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ.

...

For example, the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ; it is His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

...In addition to the symbolism of the fiery coal from the altar, the Eucharistic bread itself seems naturally to evoke the image of the oven. This image is amply justified in the Epiclesis, the prayer

that asks the Father to send down the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine into the Lord's Body and Blood.

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches agree on the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Please stop spreading misinformation on what these churches are teaching.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Jason_J

[Jason_J]

But not from the perspective of the orthodox church.

See above. The official websites of the Orthodox Churches clearly state that they believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Again, please stop spreading misinformation.

[Blackmarch]

The priest does this shortly after the homily. He will do it clearly in your view. You will hear his words.

thanks.

The manna and the passover was unleavened.

Manna was or wasn't, there really isn't any way to know.

and yes the passover was unleavened.

Are you suggesting that Catholicism contradicts the bible?

not necesseraily. I'm saying the bible does not lead me to the same intrepretation.

[Dominic_Korozya]

Can someone please explain why the vinegar given Christ on the cross is considered the fourth cup? And why the seder meal is believed to support transubstantiation?

Sorry Connie, I'm on about four other forums so I tend to end up bouncing back and forth. I completely forgot about you.

[Dominic_Korozya]

See above. The official websites of the Orthodox Churches clearly state that they believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

They do not believe in transubstantiation.

This isn't what I'm talking about. According to the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, cited above, Catholic priests are allowed to lawfully give the Eucharist to members of the Orthodox Church that are properly disposed (i.e. not in mortal sin). In contrast, they are only allowed to give the Eucharist to Protestants if they are in danger of death or other grave necessity, and have no access to their own ministers. That is what I'm talking about.

And I did not quote from Wikipedia. I quoted from the Orthodox Wiki, which is not Wikipedia.

This is completely false, and makes the Catholic Church seem as if it doesn't know what it's talking about. Why would the Catholic Church say in the Catechism that the Orthodox have valid Eucharist, apostolic succession, and priesthood, if they didn't actually believe in the Real Presence? It's illogical. Furthermore, here is what Orthodox themselves say about the Eucharist:

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America

"Orthodoxy has clearly avoided reducing the Eucharist to a simple memorial of the Last Supper which is only occasionally observed. Following the teachings of both Scripture and Tradition, the Orthodox Church believes that Christ is truly present with His people in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine become for us His Body and His Blood."

Orthodox Church in America

Holy Communion is the "sacrament of sacraments" in that it is the banquet of the Kingdom of God, the fulfillment of every other sacrament. In Holy Communion we partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Eternal Passover Lamb, Who makes us alive and holy with Himself. Through Holy Communion we become sons of God the Father, together with Jesus, filled with the "communion of the Holy Spirit."

St John the Baptist Russian Orthodox Cathedral

The Holy Fathers of the Church teach that the members of the Church comprise the Church - the Body of Christ - because in the Eucharist they partake of the Body and the Blood of Christ.

Antiochian Christian Archdiocese of North America

We believe that only a priest who has been given the authority by the Church through Christ can administer those sacraments. Only a priest and a bishop have the function and the authority to consecrate the elements of bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ.

...

For example, the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ; it is His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

...In addition to the symbolism of the fiery coal from the altar, the Eucharistic bread itself seems naturally to evoke the image of the oven. This image is amply justified in the Epiclesis, the prayer

that asks the Father to send down the Holy Spirit to transform the bread and wine into the Lord's Body and Blood.

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches agree on the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Please stop spreading misinformation on what these churches are teaching.

I can see the problem here.

The Orthodox have this concept of "mystery". They generally don't like to define things. If you ask them how or why the Eucharist is the body of Christ, or when does it become the body of Christ, they might not give you an answer. They will just say, "It is the body of Christ."

Whereas, in the Catholic church, with the guidance of the Spirit we actually reveal these mysteries. Transubstantiation is one such doctrine. It explains as to "what happens" when the priest says the words of consecration. The Orthodox don't delve into these matters. They would just say, "It is the body of Christ."

So they might not accept the doctrine of Transubstantiation but they do believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and so are permitted to receive the Eucharist.

When, in the Ordinary's judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1401)

[john doe]

The Orthodox have this concept of "mystery". They generally don't like to define things. If you ask them how or why the Eucharist is the body of Christ, or when does it become the body of Christ, they might not give you an answer. They will just say, "It is the body of Christ."

Whereas, in the Catholic church, with the guidance of the Spirit we actually reveal these mysteries. Transubstantiation is one such doctrine. It explains as to "what happens" when the priest says the words of consecration. The Orthodox don't delve into these matters. They would just say, "It is the body of Christ."

Really? Okay, I'm game. Please explain in scientific terms how a piece of unleavened bread and a cup of wine literally transform into flesh and blood. What's the scientific formula for doing that?

[Dominic_Korozya]

Really? Okay, I'm game. Please explain in scientific terms how a piece of unleavened bread and a cup of wine literally transform into flesh and blood. What's the scientific formula for doing that?

Your belief in the existance of a God cannot be scientifically explained. We are both on the same boat John Doe.

[john doe]

So, you're saying that it is through your faith that transubstatiation occurs, right? I am confused where your problem with people who don't believe that comes in. Is it required to believe that?

[Dominic_Korozya]

So, you're saying that it is through your faith that transubstatiation occurs, right? I am confused where your problem with people who don't believe that comes in. Is it required to believe that?

The host becomes the body of Christ whether you believe it or not, no faith is required.

You cannot prove the existance of God just as I cannot prove the transformation of the Eucharist, and yet both are fact. Transubstantiation is not physically logical, nor is the existance of a God.