- According To Official Roman Catholic Doctrine, Only The Substance Of The Consecrated Elements (Bread and Wine) Are Changed By The Priest:
-"If any one...denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Thirteen Session, Canon 2)
- How Eucharistic Miracles Contradict The Roman Catholic Doctrine Of The Eucharist:
-The cited excerpt from the Council of Trent expressly states that the appearance of the bread and wine remains the same, despite the substance being mysteriously transformed (into the literal fullness of Jesus Christ's flesh, blood, and divinity) by the priest. In other words, the Catholic definition of transubstantiation involves an unverifiable miracle to human reason. However, Eucharistic miracles are readily observable to the people who are present at the Mass ceremonies. This is extremely problematical for the Roman Catholic position because according to official Church doctrine, the appearance of the transubstantiated elements remains completely unchanged. A change in appearance is contrary to no change in appearance. So when apologists for the Church of Rome cite occurrences of Eucharistic miracles as proof for the veracity of their beliefs, their arguments are actually counterproductive because these so-called supernatural occasions do not fit the Roman Catholic definition of transubstantiation.
HAH!!! Excellent point!!!
ReplyDeleteAt this moment I am going away to do my breakfast, later than having my breakfast coming again to read further news.
ReplyDeleteOne should distinguish here between the invisible miracle of Transubstantiation, which occurs when the formula of consecration is recited at Mass, and a visible Eucharistic miracle, which can only happens to an already consecrated host.
ReplyDeleteThe real difficulty to the concept of a visible Eucharistic miracle is that the bread (or wine) accidents are a precondition of the Real Presence, since Christ's presence can only occur under the species of bread and wine. If the accidents of bread change in such a way that they become for example accidents of human tissue (as is claimed for some Eucharistic miracles), then at least the Real Presence has ceased in the same way as if the host had been consumed in communion, and this would render the miracle senseless. But this is only true if the entire host has turned into human tissue. If the change is partial, however, and some parts of the host show the accidents of human tissue while other parts still show the accidents of bread, then the Real Presence remains under the parts which weren't visibly changed.
It is also possible that the accidents of bread remain intact and are only spatially reconfigurated on a level beyond our sensory perception, so as to create the impression of human tissue. Just as normal bread can be baked in the figure of a child or a human heart without being changed into these things, so the accidents of the Eucharist can be spatially refigurated into the appearance of human tissue, or something else, while still remaining accidents of bread.
Ronald,
DeleteShow me from Scripture where miracles are invisible.
Show me from Scripture where Jesus told the Apostles to say "hocus locus" over the bread and wine to make it an invisible miracle of becoming true flesh and blood. This is nothing but heretical superstition.
Oh, and show me from Scripture where "Christ's presence can only occur under the species of bread and wine. -- I CAN show you from Scripture where Christ's presence took place in front of many people!
If the Last Supper was in actuality a Mass as claimed by Rome, then how could Jesus be sitting there with the elements at the same time saying the elements were his body and blood? Do you think the disciples understood Jesus to be speaking literally, since the Law prohibited the eating of blood? And if the human body of Christ is located in heaven at the Father’s right hand, how can it be at the same time in millions of places in Masses all over the world? Isn’t it more likely that Jesus was using the bread and wine figuratively so as to provide Christians with symbols to celebrate with as a memorial?
Rome also claims that in the Eucharist Christ is sacrificed to God, and that the Last Supper was in itself a Mass. If the Last Supper was indeed a sacrifice of Christ, then we have an illogical situation of Christ sacrificing himself before he was sacrificed on the cross. Additionally, if each Mass is a sacrifice of Christ, then we have a direct contradiction of the Bible which says that Christ was sacrificed once for all time, and that this eliminated the need for continual sacrifices.
It takes a great deal of a lack of common sense to belief in the papist's teaching of transubstantiation.
Ronald,
ReplyDeleteYou misrepresent my argument when you speak as if I was conflating the instances of transubstantiation and eucharistic miracles. If the elements retain the exact appearance even after transubstantiation happens, then one cannot appeal to eucharistic miracles as evidence because that does not fit the definition of the dogma.
If the body and blood of Christ appear to be bread and wine after the "miraculous" change takes place, then people who claim to see flesh or taste blood cannot use such episodes to support the idea of transubstantiation.
It is not sound practice to build an argument on a speculative and hypothetical foundation. The apostles never would have conceived of the Lord's Supper in terms of "substance and accidents" or the communion elements being "spatially reconfigurated."
If one wishes to defend transubstantiation, then he or she is required to embrace all sorts of bizarre contradictions in logic and devise convoluted sounding theories as to how such can be valid.
Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light by performing counterfeit miracles (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). This mysterious phenomena with the Roman Catholic eucharist can be discarded as a valid argument in defense of transubstantiation.
Hey Jesse,
ReplyDeleteYou make an interesting point in your article. But I can see how some Catholics would respond as Ronald did with weird, high-sounding and convoluted reasoning. I fully expect them to say that the “change” in the elements in Mass would be “distinguished, and different from,” the Eucharistic miracles like “bleeding hosts,” etc. Very predictable of them.
But hopefully, your point will make them think a little deeper.
Keep up the good work!